Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202401)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202401

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 May 2023

 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repair work to the resident’s heating system; and
    2. Communication and handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The matter giving rise to the complaint is that in December 2021, the resident reported an issue with his radiators heating up and a visit by an engineer confirmed the need for repair works – the replacement of the heating expansion vessel. The resident has a direct agreement with the Energy Service Company for heating and the maintenance of the heating interface unit (the HIU). The Energy Service Company is responsible for the HIU and the district parts whereas the landlord is responsible for other heating demised to the property and repairs to radiators, hot water cylinders, and any pipework etc. serving the property.
  3. The resident believed that the landlord was responsible for this repair work. He had been told by the heating contractor that they were waiting on authorisation for the part from the landlord, and the Energy Service Company had similarly told him the landlord was responsible for the replacement of the heating expansion vessel.
  4. On or around 21 January 2022, the resident raised concerns with the landlord as the repair work remained outstanding. He was advised to log a formal complaint with the heating contractor. The resident stated that he had raised this with them and wanted the matter investigated as he had four young children and was still waiting for the heating repair work.
  5. On 21 February 2022, the resident sent further email correspondence to the landlord noting that it had been 23 days since he complained about the heating repair issue, and almost three months since the engineer confirmed the heating expansion vessel needed replacing as it was causing his radiators to heat up. He asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  6. The landlord’s stage one response dated 9 March 2022 states that its heat team had confirmed that the Energy Service Company own and maintain the HIU in which the expansion vessel is located and, as such, the landlord did not have authority or responsibility to repair that item. Further, the landlord’s surveyor had been in contact with the Energy Service Company who advised that they were due to carry out wider works on the district system that was affecting the resident’s property, about which he had an open complaint with them. It found no service failure and advised the resident to contact the Energy Service Company.
  7. The complaint was escalated on or around 15 March 2022, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response as he considered that the landlord was responsible for the part that needed replacing, in a previous heating related complaint he had been advised to contact the heating contractor, his complaint with the Energy Service Company was not about the replacement of the heating expansion vessel and he remained concern about the risk of leak/damage while the repair work was outstanding.
  8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 29 April 2022. It determined that its stage one response was reasonable and accurate. This was based on there being a direct agreement between the resident and the Energy Service Company for the provision of heating and maintenance of the HIU. It had spoken to the Energy Service Company who confirmed he had an open complaint with them about the same subject.
  9. It apologised for the heating contractor having informed him that they were awaiting the landlord’s response to replace the heating expansion vessel for the HIU. The landlord stated that the Energy Service Company had a valve on the district side which was damaged and needed replacing and which was only affecting the resident’s home due to its location on the network. It considered that the expansion vessel could only realistically be replaced after this was done, as there was little or no flow into the resident’s property and improving it would not have changed this. It confirmed its view that the expansion vessel was a fundamental component of the HIU and that they considered the Energy Service Company was liable for its repair. However, it recognised that the repair work would be further delayed while ownership for the replacement was contested, and as a goodwill gesture agreed to replace the expansion vessel subject to it receiving permission from the Energy Service Company.
  10. The landlord apologised for the confusion regarding a previous complaint about heating and hot water (February 2021) where it had advised the resident to contact the heating contractor in the first instance regarding heating and hot water issues. It said that it would be more efficient for the resident to contact the Energy Service Company instead. Also, the landlord awarded compensation of £25 for the delay in its stage two response.
  11. The resident has advised this Service that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as he considered it to be wrong and that he was not treated fairly. He does not believe that the matter was handled appropriately and sought the following outcomes – compensation of at least £500 as per the Energy Ombudsman’s guidelines on heating failure; an apology from the landlord for its handling of the repairs issue, and for it to accept responsibility for the works rather than deem it a goodwill gesture. He sought assurances that the landlord will accept responsibility for similar works in future and authorise the parts with their heating contractor within 24 hours.

Assessment and findings

  1. In addition to the above-mentioned communication between the resident and the landlord, the Service also had sight of internal communication regarding the heating repair issue and the complaint.

Handling of repair work

  1. There is evidence that it took five months for the repair work to be completed. At the time that the landlord agreed to replace the heating expansion vessel liability for the work remained in dispute. The resident provided evidence that the Energy Service Company did not accept responsibility for the replacement of the expansion vessel and considered it to be a matter for the landlord to resolve. Internal correspondence showed that enquiries were made with the Energy Service Company and, as at the end of April 2022, responsibility for the work remained in dispute. Although the landlord remained of the view that it was not responsible for the replacement of the expansion vessel, it nevertheless agreed to carry out the work as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the impact of the continued delay to the resident.
  2. The evidence references an appointment for repair works to the district system by the Energy Service Company in February 2022, and the heating contractor acting for the landlord, replaced the expansion vessel in May 2022. Therefore, both the Energy Service Company and the landlord carried out works to resolve the heating issue which was affecting the resident’s property. The landlord considered that, even if it had accepted responsibility for the replacement of the expansion vessel, this would not have resolved the issue until the Energy Service Company completed its works to the HIU. In these circumstances it is not clear to what extent (if any) the landlord was liable for the heating issue affecting the resident’s property.
  3. There is evidence that a complaint regarding the heating/radiator issue of December 2021 was also raised with the Energy Service Company, however the Ombudsman was not given any evidence as to the nature of this complaint or the outcome. It is not known whether any complaint was made to the Energy Ombudsman, although it does appear that the resident had some awareness of them given that he references their recommended compensation guidelines.
  4. On balance, and having considered the available evidence, it is apparent that there was a delay in the repair works being carried out; however, it is not possible to make a determination as to whether the landlord was liable for the replacement of the expansion vessel.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord took a different approach to the heating repair works to that of October/November 2020 (replacement of a cylinder pump and two-part valve). The resident was given different advice as to who to contact in the first instance when there is an issue with his heating and hot water. The fact that the advice differed does not mean that the current advice was wrong or unreasonable. Also, the parts which needed replacing are different and it is not possible to determine liability given the limited evidence. Therefore, the Service is not in a position to order the landlord to accept responsibility for the work or to give assurances that it will authorise parts or repairs within 24 hours.

Communication and handling of the complaint

  1. It is apparent that responsibilities for heating and hot water issues are split between the landlord and the Energy Service Company, and that the resident has an agreement with the Energy Service Company for heating services (the Service has not seen a copy of that agreement). Internal correspondence states that the landlord has responsibility for repairs to radiators, hot water cylinders and any pipework or valves that come out of the HIU and serve the demised property. The heating expansion vessel is not included in this list and in the months that the landlord was dealing with the complaint it remained of the view that the replacement of that part was the responsibility of the Energy Service Company.
  2. Setting aside the issue of liability, the matter took five months to be adequately addressed and resolved. It was some months before the landlord recognised the negative impact that the ongoing dispute about liability was having on the resident and his young family.
  3. It is not clear whether the landlord has finally resolved the liability issue for the expansion vessel or what steps it has taken to clarify what parts it or its heating contractor is liable for to avoid similar problems and delay in future. The landlord would not be providing a good service to its residents if there is a lengthy dispute about liability when a resident raises a problem with their heating. Even with the resident having a contract with the Energy Service Company for heating services, this is not a case where the landlord has no responsibility at all. Steps should have been taken to keep a record of the types of heating repair works or parts it will take responsibility for where the resident has a direct agreement with the Energy Service Company. Unless the landlord takes steps to address this, it is likely that it will face similar complaints and dissatisfaction amongst its tenants.
  4. In its handling of the resident’s complaint, the main focus was on the liability issue and the landlord had not fully and meaningfully engaged with the impact that the heating issue was having on the resident and his family.
  5. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. It is evident that the landlord’s communication with the resident caused frustration and inconvenience. Accordingly, compensation is appropriate for that impact on the resident of £150. That sum is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been poor communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication and handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the heating repair work.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 compensation to recognise the inconvenience and frustration caused by its communication failings. This sum should be paid direct to the resident.
    2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman.