Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202215395)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215395

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

16 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. The complaint is about the landlords handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident has stated that she reported that her boiler was broken on 25 August 2022 and explained that this was causing her heating and hot water to work intermittently. The resident’s boiler system was non-standard, which required a specialist sub-contractor to undertake effective repairs. The sub-contractor attended on 14 September 2022, concluding that a part needed to be ordered for the boiler. However, the sub-contractor explained that it could not complete the works as it did not have the requisite training to do so.
  3. The resident has stated that she first complained on 16 September 2022. She chased her complaint on 13 October 2022, explaining that the repair still remained outstanding and that the landlord had failed to communicate with her about the works. She stated that she was still without consistent heating and hot water.
  4. The landlord responded on 24 October 2022. It apologised for the delay to the repair. It stated that such an extensive delay should have been flagged internally. As such it had now implemented a new system with its contractors to prevent this error from reoccurring. It stated that the resident’s boiler was an unusual model, with difficult to source parts. Subsequently, it was considering alternative options for the resident’s heating going forward. In the interim, it had ordered the necessary part which would arrive that week. It apologised for its lack of communication throughout the repairs. The landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her.
  5. The landlord’s contractor attended on 1 November 2022 and replaced a faulty part of the boiler. However, the contractor only fixed part of the issue, and so the boiler continued to malfunction. On 17 November 2022, the resident reported that the boiler had a severe leak, which was damaging her floor. The contractor attended the same day and confirmed that the boiler needed a secondary part. It attempted to fix the leak, but was unable to do so. A surveyor attended on 21 November to measure the property for a new boiler. They did not address the leak, due to a lack of experience with that type of boiler.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 November 2022, due to the boiler repair continuing to be outstanding for over 12 weeks. Additionally, the resident advised that the boiler was now leaking uncontrollably and causing extensive damage to her floor. She complained that the operatives sent to repair the boiler were not suitably trained on that model. The resident wanted the leak to be stopped urgently, as well as the boiler replaced and to be compensated further for her inconvenience. The contractor attended on 24 November 2022 and fitted the new part to the boiler. It attended again on 25 November 2022, yet on both occasions it failed to fix the leak. The leak was finally rectified on 26 November 2022.
  7. The landlord sent its stage two response on 28 December 2022. It apologised for both the delay in repairing the boiler and then in replacing it. It acknowledged that its gas contractor did not have the requisite skills to address the problem, and should have proactively engaged a sub-contractor to fix the issue. The landlord offered to pay for the extra expense incurred by the resident in her electricity bills due the faulty boiler. It stated that it would fix her flooring like-for-like and reiterated its offer to compensate her with £1,000. It stated that it had offered the dates of 4 and 5 January 2023 for the works, but the resident was not available. It assured her that it would be in contact to confirm a date for the works.
  8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she would like the compensation amount to be revaluated by the landlord. This is due to the extensive delays to her boiler, leaving her without heating and hot water for extended periods throughout 2022.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair and working order the systems for supplying water, gas and electricity, including any water heaters, and central heating systems. On the landlord’s website it states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. Examples of such repairs include major water leaks. Urgent repairs should be attended to within seven days. These include normal plumbing leaks, no hot water and no heating (between 1 October and 31 March). Non-urgent plumbing and electrical work will be attended to within 28 days.
  2. According to the above timescales, when the resident reported that her boiler needed a repair due to having no hot water on 25 August 2022, the landlord should have attended and undertaken works necessary to resolve the matter within seven days. However, the repairs to the boiler remained outstanding until 26 November 2022, three months later. As the unit was a non-standard model, the landlord needed to order specialist parts, which took longer to arrive. The landlord would be expected to communicate this to her, to help manage her expectations. However, it neglected to initially explain this to the resident. It also failed to order the parts in a timely fashion, which contributed to the delay.
  3. The landlord’s contractors continuously attended the property in response to the resident’s reports. However, due to the unique nature of the boiler, they were for the most part unable to undertake effective repairs, as they did not have requisite training to do so. The first sub-contractors who attended on 14 September 2022 were not qualified to undertake the repairs. The landlord’s contractors did not seek to engage another sub-contractor until 6 October 2022. This was six weeks after the resident reported the issue in August 2022. The sub-contractors replaced a compression valve on 1 November 2022, yet it had failed to order the second outstanding part for the boiler and so this did not fix the overall issue. As a direct result of the delay to repairs, the boiler began leaking, causing damage to the resident’s floor.
  4. Once the resident reported that there was an uncontrollable leak coming from the boiler on 17 November 2022, the landlord should have attended to stop the leak within its emergency timescales of 24 hours. However, although its contractors attended to inspect the leak, they again failed to undertake effective repairs to the boiler. The boiler only stopped leaking once the second part was installed on 26 November 2022. The failings in this case were caused by a lack of experienced personnel being engaged to fix the unit, within an adequate timeframe.
  5. In its first complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by identifying that its contractors failed to engage a specialist sub-contractor for the unit within the correct timescales. It acknowledged that this was contrary to its policies, which dictated that its contractor must engage the correct operatives for specialist works. It also recognised that this had caused significant delays and inconvenience to the resident. To put this right, the landlord effected changes with how it communicated with its contractors, setting up weekly meetings to discuss ongoing repairs. It arranged for the extra part to be fitted in the interim, and began to explore the long-term solution of replacing the boiler. It also apologised for the issues the resident had faced, and offered her £1,000 in compensation. In its second response, the landlord again acted appropriately by apologising for the delays in replacing the boiler. It also offered to cover any additional expenditure incurred by the resident, due to an increase in electricity bills because of the faulty boiler. The landlord reassured the resident that it would replace the damaged flooring, ensuring that it matched the existing floor like-for-like.
  6. The landlord offered the resident the date of 4 and 5 of January 2022 to replace the boiler, however the resident did not have enough notice to take time off work for the repairs. The boiler replacement currently remains outstanding. The resident declined the boiler install in February 2022, due to concerns that it may cost her more to run. The landlord acted reasonably by exploring other options and offering an alternative boiler that would be as economical as the original boiler, but easier to maintain. The landlord continued to ask the resident to provide dates for the installation, however, due to personal circumstances, the resident was not able to provide her availability at that time. The evidence shows that the landlord has continued to chase the resident to book an appointment for the installation. This was appropriate, as the works should be completed as soon as it is convenient for the resident.
  7. The landlord has not disputed that there were significant delays in completing the repair to the resident’s boiler. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord did put matters right by identifying its key mistakes, acknowledging these to the resident, making changes within its organisation and offering a fair and proportionate amount of compensation in view of the circumstances. The £1,000 compensation being in line with the level of compensation suggested in this service’s remedies guidance for situations were a landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service and where that failure had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(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 satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. This determination is based on the understanding that the landlord will pay the resident the compensation it has previously offered. It is also understood that it will continue to seek a convenient date to replace the resident’s boiler, if it has not done so already.