Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202223221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223221

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

20 September 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 concerns the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to and subsequent replacement of the resident’s boiler.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. Both the landlord and its contractors have been heavily involved in the circumstances of this complaint. However, the landlord has overall responsibility for the repairs, even when its contractors have undertaken the specific repair actions. Because of that, references to ‘the landlord’ are intended to include its contractor’s actions as well.
3. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence state that the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water in the property in May 2022 and again in June 2022. These issues were resolved. Following a further report of a loss of heating and hot water from the resident in November 2022, the landlord took the decision to replace the boiler. This was completed on 18 November 2022.
4. On 14 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint about its handling of the repairs and boiler replacement. He explained that:
   1. He had experienced ongoing issues with loss of heating and hot water which had caused significant disruption, affected his work and medical conditions.
   2. He had received a poor level of service from the contractor who attended to the boiler, and on one occasion only called him to discuss the issue rather than inspect the boiler.
   3. Once the landlord took the decision to replace the boiler, he was left without hot water or heating for several days and the landlord did not take reasonable adjustments in light of him being a vulnerable tenant.
   4. The work to replace the boiler was incomplete as a protective cover was not fitted.
5. The landlord sent a stage one response on 7 December 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord wrote a detailed response to him on 23 December. In its two responses, the landlord:
   1. Gave a timeline of how it responded to the reports from the resident about the boiler and the loss of heating and hot water.
   2. Stated that overall, it was satisfied with how it responded to the reports but acknowledged that there was a delay in providing temporary heating to the resident after it made the decision to replace the boiler. The landlord apologised to the resident for this delay.
   3. Explained that the boxing of the pipework below the boiler would be cosmetic and assured the resident that there was no health and safety issues or risk of electrocution from the pipework in their current condition. The landlord agreed to arrange for timber boxing to be fitted below the boiler.
   4. Offered the resident £102 compensation, which it broke down as £60 for its service failure in its delay to provide temporary heating, £22 for the costs using the temporary heating and £20 for the time and trouble caused to the resident.
6. Confusingly, the landlord labelled its final response as the “stage two final response”, but explained in its letter that “as your request to raise your complaint to a Stage Two has not met either of the three valid reasons to further investigate your complaint, we stand by our initial decision given at Stage One and no further action or compensation will be awarded”.
7. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained that he disputed the dates the landlord referred to in its complaint responses, the boiler replacement was not completed within a timely manner, the photographs provided by the landlord of the boiler were not taken in his property, the landlord did not properly follow its complaint process, and the amount of compensation it offered was inadequate in light of the distress and disruption the issue had caused. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation to £900.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. In his complaint to the landlord and to this Service, the resident has described the effect on his health and existing medical conditions the issue had caused. The resident attributed a decline in his health to the issues raised in his complaint. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on physical health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof. That is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent advice should he wish to pursue this option. This report does not seek to determine whether the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected the resident’s health.
9. The resident disputed that photographs of the boiler provided by the landlord in its complaint response were taken in his property. He provided photos and videos in support of his concern. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we cannot usually place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions, and it is not possible for this investigation to make any determination in regard to this particular concern. We have not considered the images in reaching our decision, and have relied on the resident’s information and explanations, the landlord’s internal correspondence, repair logs and notes written by the operatives who visited the property and inspected the boiler.

Relevant policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s repairs handbook defines its repair categories as “Emergency” (attend to make safe the issue within 24 hours), “Routine” (attend within 28 calendar days) and “Non-routine” (attend within 90 calendar days). The handbook states that a total loss of heating and hot water from a boiler is considered an emergency repair. The landlord has also stated that it expects a boiler replacement to be completed within ten days.
11. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Repairs and replacement of the boiler

12. When informed by the resident of the issues with the boiler, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence show that:
    1. It received a report from the resident on 15 May 2022 that he had lost heating and hot water. An engineer attended on the same day. The engineer repressurised the boiler, which resolved the issue.
    2. The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water again on 4 June 2022. An engineer spoke to the resident over the telephone and explained how to top up the system pressure. The resident confirmed that this resolved the issue.
    3. The resident reported a further loss of heating and hot water on 20 October 2022. He also informed the landlord that he would not be available until 25 October 2022 and an appointment was made for that day. The resident called the landlord on the morning of 25 October 2022 to cancel the appointment as the heating and hot water had returned.
    4. The resident reported that the boiler had broken down on 6 November 2022. An engineer attended on 7 November 2022, but the appointment did not go ahead due to no access, and a calling card was left. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 November 2022 and an engineer attended on 10 November 2022. The engineer recommended the replacement of the boiler as it was beyond economic repair.
    5. A survey for the new boiler was completed on 11 November 2022, temporary heating was supplied to the resident on 16 November 2022 and the new boiler was installed on 18 November 2022.
13. The resident disputed some of the dates referred to by the landlord, which the landlord addressed in its final complaint response. This investigation relies on the records and information provided by both the resident and landlord. As far as can be seen from that evidence and information, the explanations provided by the landlord were accurate.
14. The resident explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord was at fault in line with its obligations, because under “Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, you have the right to expect your landlord to carry out repairs in a ‘reasonable time’. If it’s an emergency repair as you’ve got no heating or hot water, your landlord should fix this in 24 hours.” However, that is not wholly correct. There is indeed an expectation that a landlord will conduct repairs in a reasonable time frame, but that time frame is not defined. Other sources (such as the local authority Right to Repair Scheme) set out some more specific guidance about time frames which a landlord should reasonably aim for, and these include responding within one working day for a loss of heating and hot water in the winter period (November to April), which is the same as the landlord’s own response time. The key point is that a landlord should respond, as in, attend to investigate and repair if possible. But there is no defined obligation for a landlord to specifically repair a fault within that time frame, because there are many factors which may potentially mean a repair cannot realistically be resolved so quickly. Replacing a boiler is often such a repair issue which will not usually be able to be done within a day, and nothing in the evidence in this case suggests otherwise. In this case the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a reasonable manner in each case within the relevant time frame.
15. The resident complained that the boiler replacement was delayed partly due to the landlord’s delay “signing the agreement”, by which it is assumed he means approving the operatives’ request for the replacement. No set time frames have been seen in this case in which the landlord would be expected to approve such a repair activity. Time frames would usually be for the overall process rather than specific steps in it. In this case, the resident reported the fault on 9 November 2022 (after a previous report had resulted in the landlord not being able to gain access), the landlord attended the next day and made the decision to replace the boiler. The boiler was installed on 18 November, a total of seven working days after his report. That was a reasonable response time for a boiler replacement, which can sometimes take much longer due to the inherent complexity involved.
16. The landlord provided temporary heaters on 16 November 2022, which was seven calendar days after the resident’s report. There is no specific obligation for a landlord to provide temporary heaters, but it is almost always good practice to do so, and to do it promptly in order to minimise disruption for a tenant. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will provide heaters in winter “when required”, but it is difficult to imagine a situation where they would not be required. The landlord acknowledged that it had not provided them as promptly as it should have, apologised, and provided £80 compensation for the inconvenience caused. These were appropriate remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and were reasonable and proportionate to the scale of the failing and the landlord’s obligations.
17. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that after the boiler failure on 4 June 2022 (when he had been talked through the pressure top-up process over the phone) “The engineer should have booked a follow-up appointment to confirm that I had done everything correctly.” The resident’s concern is understandable, however the landlord has an obligation to repair things that aren’t working. As the resident had confirmed the boiler was working again, nothing in the landlord’s policies states that the landlord had a further obligation to attend. In general, it would only have been required to attend if the attempt had not been successful.
18. The resident explained several times in his complaints that due to his vulnerabilities the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments in handling his boiler reports and the subsequent repairs. No evidence has been seen of the resident explaining prior to the boiler replacement what adjustments he wanted, or what changes would have helped in his situation. The landlord has explained to this Service that it was previously aware of adjustments asked by the resident in terms of how it communicated with him, but it only became aware of how the lack of heating or hot water was having a greater impact than might otherwise be the case when he informed it on 15 and 16 November 2022. At that point he emailed the landlord saying that he needed hot water for medical equipment, and that he experienced severe pain in his hands and feet unless he had heat at all times. The resident asked to be temporarily housed until the boiler issue was resolved, which the landlord agreed to do. The landlord’s decant policy states that it will not usually decant a tenant in such repair situations, so the landlord’s agreement was clearly an adjustment it made for the resident’s circumstances and request.
19. It was wholly reasonable and appropriate for the resident to ask the landlord to adjust its services to match his particular needs and circumstances, and the landlord needed to have the opportunity to consider those adjustments and react accordingly. The landlord’s actions when it became aware of what the resident needed and what he believed would help (i.e. a decant to temporary accommodation) were appropriate to the circumstances, and reasonable.
20. The resident complained that a protective cover for the piping under the new boiler had not been installed after the replacement. The landlord explained that the cover was purely for aesthetic purposes, that there was no safety risk from it, and that it would install the cover in due course. The resident told this Service that he had informed the landlord “that I am in danger of being electrocuted. Due to my vulnerabilities and disabilities and due to the fact that it is right next to the kitchen sink.” Nothing in the evidence indicates that a risk to health and safety was present at the time, despite the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed the work in January 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise installing the boiler and getting the heating system working over any supplemental work, as the heating was obviously the highest priority and there is no indication the cover was essential to meet that objective.
21. In his complaints the resident explained that he felt the landlord should have identified at an earlier date (such as at the time of the 15 May 2022 report) that the boiler was in need of replacement, and that the repairs the landlord did make were “quick fix solutions” and indicated there was something wrong with it. The resident is correct in saying that repeated problems with a boiler can indicate underlying issues which might need more in-depth inspection, and basic good practice would be for a landlord to notice a pattern of frequent boiler failures and take appropriate steps. In this case the resident had reported a failure in May, which the landlord resolved; June, which was resolved over the phone; October – which resolved itself- and November, which is when the landlord decided to replace the boiler. Decisions about how to repair and maintain appliances are the landlord’s to make, based on the circumstances and advice from its operatives. The pattern of repair issues the resident reported was not one which could reasonably be said to have indicated the landlord should have replaced the boiler at an earlier stage (by any meaningful standard), and none of the operatives who dealt with the reports suggested such action until November, at which point the landlord agreed to do so.
22. In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern that “it was much longer that 6 days that MTVH had been aware of the situation.” The resident has said to this Service that “it was much longer than 6 days that I was left to suffer without heating or hot water which metropolitan claim.” The landlord explained that the primary issue was that it had responded to his reports in line with its policies and procedures. In the circumstances of this complaint the landlord’s response was reasonable, because it had responded promptly and in line with its time frames, and took appropriate action when its operatives recommended replacing the boiler.
23. The resident explained that his boiler had had its annual check in August 2022 and been “approved”. In his complaint to the Ombudsman he said this check played a crucial role but the landlord had said it was irrelevant, and he also told us that he had not had any heating at the time of the check. The landlord had explained that it felt the point the resident was making was immaterial because each of his reports about the boiler had been attended to in line with its repair time frames. The resident’s concern here is not wholly clear, but it may be that he was unsure why the annual check had indicated no issues with the boiler despite the fact he had been having problems with it. If so, it should be noted that the two are not mutually exclusive. A successful annual check does not mean that no problems will occur in the future, or that there have not been any problems prior to the check. There is also no evidence of the resident reporting to the landlord that his heating had failed in August 2022. The landlord’s explanation was accurate about its actions and performance in regard to the boiler repairs and replacement, as per its repair records and policy.
24. The resident’s inconvenience and frustration with the boiler problems is understandable, especially as his specific circumstances were more impacted by the lack of heating and hot water. Nonetheless, overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the repair reports, and to the resident’s request for adjustments during the period when the boiler was being replaced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

25. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that he did not believe the landlord had followed its complaint process. He gave three examples: the landlord rang him rather than communicate by email, which he believed was “to avoid email evidence.”; the stage two complaint response was written by someone he suspected was in the same team as the person who wrote the stage one response; and he did not receive an acknowledgement that his complaint had been escalated.
26. It would not usually be inappropriate for a landlord to speak with a tenant over the phone to discuss any concerns raised in a complaint, and that can often be an effective and speedy way for a landlord to properly understand the specific issues of complaint and desired outcomes. However, the landlord has told us that it had only one agreed adjustment on its files for the resident, and that was to communicate only by email through the complaints process. Because of that it would have been unreasonable for the landlord to not follow its agreement, by ringing the resident. There is not enough information in the evidence provided for this investigation to make a determination on this point, but a recommendation has been made below in light of it.
27. The complaints policy provided by the landlord for this investigation states that in asking to escalate their complaint a tenant must satisfy certain criteria, if the landlord is to agree to escalate to stage two of the process. In its final complaint response the landlord explained that the resident had not satisfied those criteria. We have not been given any records showing when the resident asked to escalate his complaint, or what points he made, so we cannot assess whether the landlord’s decision that he had not met the criteria was reasonable or not. However, the length and detail of the landlord’s final response shows that the resident had indeed raised issues which required further consideration and explanation, and for all intents and purposes the letter was an escalated complaint response. Furthermore, the letter was labelled as a stage two response, and in several other places in the letter the landlord referred to the resident having completed the two complaint stages. The handling of this stage of the complaint was therefore poor and confusing.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy states that on receipt of an escalated complaint, the landlord’s customer care team will “arrange an independent review of the complaint…[and] Acknowledge the escalation within no longer than 5 working days of receipt of the escalation request confirming a named individual within CCT who will be responsible for the complaint response and adherence to timeframes.” It also states that the responsible officer should “Ensure the response is signed off by the head(s) of service and subsequently the director of the service area as well as the regional director of the relevant area prior to sending.” We have not seen any evidence of an acknowledgement to the resident, as required if the escalation had been agreed. Also, while the final letter includes a general reference to the sign off policy and implies that such sign off has been given, no evidence of that being done has been seen for this investigation.
29. The landlord’s complaints policy does not prohibit staff from the same team responding to a complaint at the different stages, which was the resident’s concern. It only requires that an escalated complaint has been signed off by higher level managers – which there is no evidence of in this case.
30. Overall, the landlord’s actions indicate that it should have accepted the resident’s escalation request, and should have followed its policy in relation to communication with the resident and signing off the final decision. It did not do that, which was not reasonable.
31. The impact of the landlord’s confusing handling of the second half of the complaints process appears to have been limited. The final response was detailed, and addressed a range of issues which the resident has largely reiterated in his complaint to the Ombudsman. The explanations were sound and supported by the evidence. The landlord then correctly referred the resident to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to and subsequent replacement of the resident’s boiler satisfactorily. 
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Orders

34. In light of the landlord’s confused handling of the resident’s escalation request it is ordered to pay him £75 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation it offered in its complaint responses, which should now also be paid (if it has not been already).
35. The landlord should also review its complaint handling in this case and identify how it will ensure such confusion about its escalated complaint process does not reoccur, particularly in regard to following its escalation policy and keeping evidence of its high level sign off.
36. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendation

37. As noted above, the landlord should respond to the resident’s concern that it phoned him during the complaints process. Such an action was not unreasonable in itself, but the landlord has told us it had agreed with the resident that it would only email him, and so it should investigate why it did not adhere to that agreement in this case.
38. The landlord should also ensure that it discusses with the resident any adjustments it might be able to consider making to its services in order to provide them in a manner more suitable to his needs. This is something the landlord has already advised us that it intends to do.
39. Please note that recommendations are different to orders. They are at the landlord’s discretion to undertake, which it generally should do in order to maintain good relationships with tenants or improve its services. Ultimately, however, whether it does follow them, and how it does that, is for the landlord to decide.