Tower Hamlets Homes (202120234)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120234

Tower Hamlets Homes

5 September 2022

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s heating.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities within the resident’s household, which the landlord has been made aware of.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 16 December 2020, that her living room heater was not working.
  3. The landlord scheduled an appointment to repair the heating for 22 December 2020. However, the operative was unable to attend due to sickness. An appointment was rearranged for 5 January 2021.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 4 January 2021. The resident stated that she had no heating in the property over the Christmas period, where the property was almost the same temperature as outside. The resident stated the cancellation of the initial appointment and the re-booked appointment was not communicated to her. The resident stated that the circumstances in the property were not fit for her and her child, due to her child’s vulnerabilities. The resident felt that the landlord’s behaviour was ‘disgraceful’ and ‘careless’. The resident stated that ‘somebody needed to take responsibility’ for the landlord’s ‘failings’.
  5. A contractor attended the property on 5 January 2021 and found the heater to be defective. The contractor attempted to restart the heater, but this did not resolve the issue. It was also noted that the heater in the bedroom was working ‘satisfactorily’
  6. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 29 January 2021. The landlord apologised for this delay, but stated it was unfortunate and unavoidable due to the contractor’s sickness.. It offered the resident an apology for the ‘undue delay’ and inconvenience caused as a result and offered £30 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble and distress and a further £10 for the missed appointment.
  7. On 29 January 2021, the resident cancelled a further appointment to repair the heater as she was moving out of the property.
  8. On 27 July 2021, the resident’s representative requested an escalation of her complaint. It stated that the ‘compensation amount were disproportionate in regard to the costs incurred due to the electrical system breakdown’. It also stated that the condition of the resident’s child was ‘exacerbated’ by the absence of heating, an in an attempt to ‘protect’ her child from falling ill, the resident purchased the following items:
    1. A large heater, priced at £200;
    2. A small heater, priced at £30; and
    3. Duvet, blanket and throw, priced at £150.
  9. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 30 September 2021. It reiterated the points made at stage one of the complaint procedure. However, it identified that in-line with its policy, it should have offered the resident temporary heaters and apologised for not doing so. The landlord identified that more compensation should have been offered to the resident as per its compensation policy. It offered the resident £180 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £3 per day for loss of heating, after the initial 72 hours. The resident was without heating for 40 days and therefore, £120 compensation was awarded.
    2. £10 per week for a total loss of heating. The resident was without heating for six week and therefore, £60 compensation was awarded.
  10. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 3 December 2021. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident would like additional compensation for the mental and physical struggle she had to endure, a rent refund for the five weeks she was without heating and the additional living costs and compensation for the additional heaters and items she had to purchase.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has stated that the lack of heating affected her child’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about the effect of the lack of heating on her child’s health; however we are unable to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s child’s health condition. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord through the courts or the landlord’s insurer if she considers that her or her children’s health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
    1. An emergency repair is classed as a repair where there is a serious effect on the resident. Including in an emergency repair is a total loss of electricity. These repairs should be attended to within 24 hours of being reported.
    2. A routine repair, is described as a repair which may cause inconvenience but are not of an urgent nature and do not pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety. These repairs should be completed within twenty working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that a stage two response should be provided within twenty working-days.

Heating repairs.

  1. The resident reported on 16 December 2021 that she had a loss of heating in her property. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the repair as an emergency and should have attended within 24 hours. However, the landlord did not book an appointment until five days later.
  2. Due to unforeseen circumstances the appointment scheduled for 22 December 2020 was cancelled, as the contractor was ill. It is reasonable for the landlord to apologise for this delay, as it was unforeseen that the contractor would be unavailable due to sickness. It subsequently booked an engineer for the next available appointment which was 5 January 2021. This was reasonable for the landlord to do although the landlord should have looked at whether an appointment could have been booked sooner as it was an emergency.
  3. Upon the contractor’s visit on 5 January 2021, the operative identified the radiator to be ‘defective’, ultimately meaning it could not be repaired on the day. They subsequently arranged for an appointment to be attended to on 29 January 2021, which the resident later cancelled due to moving-out of the property. This delay was reasonable, as it is not always possible to complete repairs on an initial visit, for example if parts need to be ordered or specialist equipment is needed which could not have been anticipated before the appointment.
  4. However, the landlord should have offered the resident temporary heaters for the period where the heating was not functioning adequately. This was a failing by the landlord and not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy or good practice. The landlord acknowledged that this was a failing and apologised and offered compensation in line with its compensation  policy.
  5. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated regarding the delayed appointment, particularly as it occurred over the Christmas period. However, it must also been noted that not all contractors are available over the Christmas period, including on bank holidays. Therefore, a proportion of the delays can be considered unavoidable in view of this. However, as explained above the overall delay was unreasonable and the landlord has recognised this.
  6. It is also acknowledged that the resident purchased heaters herself and additional duvets and bedding to keep herself and her family warm over the period. Whilst this Service understands why the resident purchased these items herself, it would not be the landlord’s obligation to reimburse the cost of the items, as the resident did not inform the landlord she was purchasing the items, nor did she request temporary heaters from the landlord. Therefore, the landlord did not have an opportunity to offer the resident the use of its own temporary heaters, which would have been a cheaper option before she purchased the items.
  7. The resident also requested a rent refund for the five weeks she was without heating and had to spend on additional living costs, due to the lack of heating. The landlord would not be obliged to offer a rent refund for the cost spent on additional living costs, as it has a compensation policy which identifies how much should be paid during a loss of heating, in which it applied reasonably in this case.
  8. It is acknowledged that the resident did not lose full use of her heating, as the contractors report stated that the ‘heater in the bedroom was working satisfactorily’. Therefore, the resident did not have a total loss of heating and the landlord would not be obliged to pay compensation for a total loss.
  9. Although the landlord followed its compensation policy, the Ombudsman is not bound by this and we have also considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out our service’s approach to compensation, when assessing the landlord’s offer. The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award between £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman had found service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. An example of this is repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint. In this case, there were delays in the landlord carrying out repairs. There were failures which have already been acknowledged and addressed by the landlord through its complaints process. This Service has also considered additional factors such as; the time of year the breakdown occurred, the unexpected delays such as the contractor being unavailable, the lack of communication regarding a request for additional heaters from the resident and that a total loss of heating did not occur. Therefore, the landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation in view of all the circumstances.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it should provide a stage two complaint response within twenty working days. However, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 29 January 2021 but a stage two response was not provided until 30 September 2021, nine months later. Therefore, the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in-line with its complaint handling policy and there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay in its response.
  2. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delayed complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above which suggests awards of £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman had found  service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. An example of this is repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s heating satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This compensation should be paid within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident £180 compensation offered at stage two of the complaint procedure, if it has not already done so.