Newlon Housing Trust (202302204)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302204

Newlon Housing Trust

12 March 2024

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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a breakdown of the hot water system and the associated offer of compensation.
2. The Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has resided in the one-bedroomed ground floor flat since January 2017. The landlord had recorded that the resident was vulnerable with a priority need for repairs. The property does not have a gas supply and all heating and hot water runs on electricity.
On 4 January 2023 the resident reported a breakdown of the hot water supply, and this was attended by a gas engineer on 9 January 2023. He determined an electrician was required, and the issue was not resolved. The following day the resident chased the follow up appointment, and an urgent attendance was requested due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. Following an additional attendance on 11 January 2023 the issue was resolved, however it reoccurred after 24 hours.
Following additional chases, on 17 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that there had been a “misunderstanding” and the wrong engineer had been allocated to the job. A new appointment was made for 25 January 2023, however this was changed to 23 January 2023 and when the landlord attended it advised the resident was not at the address to provide access.
An appointment was made for 6 February 2023 when again the issue was not resolved, leading to the landlord logging an initial complaint on 7 February 2023.
On 23 February 2023 another engineer attended the property and completed the following works:
1. Renewal of a fuse spur
2. Overhaul of on and off-peak heating elements
3. Renewal of a fuse
4. The off-peak fuse spur was identified as being faulty, but this could not be replaced due to its position behind the water tank.
A stage 1 complaint response was issued on 2 March 2023 stating:
1. The complaint was regarding the lack of hot water and delays to repairs.
2. It apologised for the resident “needing to complain” and recognised that this was frustrating for the resident.
3. It stated that the contractor was attempting to book an appointment and that any decisions around compensation would not be made until after the repair was completed.
The engineer requested that a boiler engineer be sent to the address to remove the tank and complete the repair. Notes by the landlord show that this appointment was scheduled for 27 February 2023 but there was no access. There is no evidence showing when the appointment was booked or how the resident was informed of it.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 4 March 2023 as he felt the landlord was “trivialising” his concerns, and he had been without hot water for 2 months. He disputed that the landlord had attended on the dates of the listed ‘no show’ appointments, and stated he would be getting legal advice. The landlord logged this escalation request on 10 March 2023 however on 19 March 2023, the resident paid for a private contractor to attend and resolve the issue. He requested that the landlord reimburse this in a separate communication.
The landlord’s formal stage 2 response was issued on 5 April 2023 stating:
1. It acknowledged a failure in service when originally logging the fault which resulted in the wrong engineer attending.
2. The job for the engineer was not raised as an emergency, and it should have been.
3. The resident’s decision to find a private contractor “prevented” it from attending to complete the repair and so the request for reimbursement was refused.
4. It offered compensation of:
  1. £25 for failure to raise an emergency repair.
  2. £150 for inconvenience caused during repair management.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance on 18 April 2023 as he was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord issued a “stage 2 review” letter to the resident, advising that as a gesture of goodwill it would be prepared to reimburse him for the private contractor. It requested an invoice and proof of payment. At the date of this report, this information has not been received by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a breakdown of hot water and the associated offer of compensation

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. “We visit within 24 hours for any situation that is either dangerous or likely to become so, or a serious health risk. We will carry out initial repairs to make safe the repair and reduce the urgency of the repair. We will return at a later date to complete the works. Examples of emergency repairs are:
  1. Total loss of heating and hot water where household members are disabled, elderly or vulnerable (October to May)”
2. “We aim to complete all urgent and routine repairs within 20 working days, within an average of 10 working days, prioritising ‘urgent’ repairs such as the following:
  1. Loss of heating or hot water supply for households not detailed above”.
The repairs policy is not clear enough on response times. For vulnerable residents, it specifies a timescale for a total loss of heating and hot water but does not give a response time for a breakdown of one of those elements, for example, hot water only.
It also does not clarify a timescale for full completion of repairs following the initial attendance to make safe and assess. While the Service understands that each repair is different and the need for parts could delay full repairs, there should be a broad timescale given for completion of the repair with a clear process for keeping residents updated. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for this policy to be reviewed.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident was listed as being vulnerable, and that repairs should be prioritised. The Service would therefore expect that this repair would have been categorised as an emergency with attendance expected within 24 hours.
While the initial attendance did take place within 24 hours, the wrong type of contractor was allocated, and subsequent appointments were not listed as a priority. This led to the resident being without hot water for a prolonged period.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord and resident have different accounts regarding several ‘no show’ appointments. Based on the evidence, we cannot say with any reasonable confidence exactly what occurred on those dates and will instead assess the communication throughout the repairs process.
There was an appointment listed by the landlord as failed due to a lack of access on 23 January 2023. The landlord’s notes on this appointment are conflicting. On 17 January 2023 the notes indicate that the resident was informed that an appointment was booked for 25 January 2023. On 20 January 2023 notes show that he was informed that the appointment was on 23 January 2023. It is unclear whether the appointment was brought forward, or whether the incorrect date had been given to the resident in the first place. It is therefore understandable that the resident may have been confused about when the appointment was to take place. However, the resident informed the landlord that he was present at the time of the missed appointment, and no-one attended.
On 24 January 2023 the resident requested that he only be contacted via email, and this was reiterated several times throughout February. Despite this, there is evidence that the landlord and contractor continued to attempt phone contact with the resident. It should have taken the resident’s communication preferences into consideration, explained how this may affect how it delivered its services to him, ensured there was a record, so all staff were aware, and passed this onto the contractor so there were no further issues with contact. There is little evidence that the landlord continued to try and book appointments to resolve the issue.
Throughout the repairs process, in his communications with the landlord the resident stated:
1. He had been forced to use freezing water for weeks and had no bathing facilities during the coldest period of the year.
2. He felt the landlord had been “intentionally negligent”, had caused mental distress, and the situation was “torturous”.
3. The issue with the hot water was recurring, and he had asked for more in-depth investigation into the issues on several occasions.
4. He had to take days off work unpaid to be in for appointments which were then not attended.
5. He was unhappy with delays in communication and with repairs.
6. He was gathering evidence to get legal advice as he felt this was his only option.
7. If the boiler issue was not resolved, he would get his own engineer to complete the works.
These points were not addressed by the landlord in its responses. While it apologised for ‘delays’ it did not consider the effect that having no hot water for a prolonged period would have on a vulnerable resident. The Service would expect that this point would have been explicitly address in its responses particularly as the resident had described the conditions as “torturous”. An email dated 17 February from the landlord’s customer service department states “I am certain that this time round the operative will resolve the matter without further delays and inconvenience to you”. While this may have been well intentioned, this type of guarantee could not have reasonably been made without expert knowledge of the fault and plans for repair. The resident’s expectations were mismanaged as a result.
The landlord’s compensation policy lists discretionary compensation at a rate of £50-£250 for “service failures that had a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. Examples include:
1. “Not having regard to a complainant’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements.
2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.”
Awards of £250-£700 are proposed for “considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. Examples include:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.
The compensation policy also awards £10 per week for a loss of hot water in a 1-bedroom property. This is payable after the first 24 hours for vulnerable households. The resident was without hot water from 4 January 2023 until 19 March 2023. As the resident is vulnerable, he would have been eligible for compensation from 5 January 2023. This equates to 10 weeks without hot water, and a compensation payment of £100 for loss of amenity. The policy caveats that compensation is not paid if the resident does not allow access. While there is dispute over whether the resident was present for some appointments, there is insufficient evidence in this case to demonstrate that there was intentional obstruction, particularly as the landlord did not follow the resident’s preferred contact method when trying to book appointments.
The Ombudsman finds that the level of compensation offered does not fully take into account the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, nor does it account for the errors made. It also did not offer compensation for loss of amenity as per its policy. An order will be made at the end of this report.
The landlord’s offer to reimburse the resident for the costs of the repair is appropriate. However, the landlord failed to make this offer during the complaints process. The landlord made this offer 6 months later following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman. It is not clear that the landlord would have taken this action without the involvement of the Ombudsman.
The resident has stated to the landlord that he feels it is being obstructive by not accepting a bank statement showing the payment. The Service considers that it is fair and appropriate for the landlord to request an invoice with the private contractor’s details and a description of the works in order to verify their credentials. Even though it did not carry out the work, it still has a legal responsibility to ensure that all water heating facilities are safe and maintained correctly by qualified tradesmen. An order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to honour its agreement to refund the costs once the appropriate information is received.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the handling of the hot water repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy specifies that residents should request escalation to stage 2 within a “reasonable timeframe” which would normally be within 20 working days. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request (pre-complaint), survey feedback and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to resolve the issue for residents as early as possible.”
The resident had expressed dissatisfaction by this definition on 17 January 2023, 24 January 2023, and 2 February 2023, however a complaint was only identified following an email sent by the resident on 7 February 2023 specifying that it was a ‘formal complaint’. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for customer facing staff to receive training on complaint identification.
The stage 1 acknowledgement was issued on 13 February 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 February 2023 to request a 10-day extension for the stage 1 response. This deadline was met, and the stage 1 response was issued on 2 March 2023 within the deadline.
There was no acknowledgement of the error in allocating a contractor at the initial repair stage, instead the repair logs were pasted into the response. There was no mention of the resident’s request for communication to be made via email, and the landlord stated that the contractors had been trying to call him to book an appointment.
The stage 2 request was made by the resident on 9 March 2023 and the response was received within the expected timescales. The landlord acknowledged there had been an error in failing to prioritise the electrical repair, however felt that sufficient efforts had been made to resolve the issue since.
There was again no reference to the resident’s statements that he was experiencing mental distress because of the continued hot water breakdown, nor any reference to his vulnerability.
While it is generally positive to advise residents of the work that has been completed or attempted, it should be relayed in a user-friendly manner. In this case, the internal notes from the landlord’s system were pasted into the complaint response. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report to ensure that any communication with residents relating to repairs is free of jargon, and in plain English.
As there were failures in service throughout the complaints process, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident compensation. An order will be added to the end of this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a breakdown of hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £650, to include the £175 already offered. This comprises of:
  1. £100 for loss of amenity in line with the landlord’s compensation policy
  2. £400 for distress and inconvenience during the repairs process
  3. £150 for service failures during the complaints process
  4. Proof of payment must be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must write to the resident to make a further request for the invoice for the work he arranged himself. It should provide a copy of this communication to the Ombudsman. Once it has received the information needed it should ensure that payment is made within four weeks.
3. Ensure the resident’s communication preferences are reviewed and clearly logged on its internal systems.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure its repairs policy provides clarity on categorisation and timescales for the loss of either heating or hot water, for both vulnerable and non-vulnerable households. This will ensure all repairs are categorised and responded to with the required urgency.
The landlord should ensure that all staff who are customer facing receive refresher training on how to identify and log complaints at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord should assess how it communicates technical matters to residents. If it is informing the resident of actions that have been completed or are being attempted, this should be in plain English, free of jargon.
The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendations to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.