Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Birmingham City Council (202108749)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108749

Birmingham City Council

19 April 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s concerns about his heating and hot water system.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The property has a district heating system, where hot water is pumped around the building 24 hours a day. Each flat has a pre-payment system (central heating system for building).
  2. The resident had historically raised concerns that the credit on his water meter would decrease by approximately 10p every six to seven days when the system was not in use. During November 2020, in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns about excessive heating charges, the landlord explained that it had checked with engineers who said that there was nothing wrong with the meter and heating system. It explained that 1kw would cost around 10p. Normal consumption would be around 1-2kw of power daily when used for hand washing alone and heating would use around 2-3kw and hour on average. It further explained that the resident’s usage was approximately 19p per day which was low. It denied the resident’s claim that the system was running at ‘high usage’ because any usage would be deemed as ‘high’ in the resident’s case. It further explained that the heating unit in the property had a pre-heat function which allowed a small amount of water so as to maintain the hot water at 50 degrees. It confirmed that this amount of water was small but could add up to 1 kw over time. It confirmed that its operatives had attempted to advise the resident of this previously but he had not accepted this response.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord in January 2021 and maintained his position that the heating system deducted funds when it was not in use. He added that the hot water system worked intermittently and the system deducted credit when the water was not hot. He said he had found the previous letter to be dismissive of his concerns and portrayed him as being problematic. He asked the landlord to investigate the matter and confirmed that he was a low energy user as he could not afford to use the heating system. The landlord responded to the resident in January 2021 and said that it believed its former response was correct and accurately addressed each issue. It apologised if the resident found the letter dismissive or intimidating.
  4. The resident pursued his concerns again with the landlord in March 2021. He maintained his position that the heating system was not working in a satisfactory manner. He said that the system was unpredictable and inconsistent. He had hot water during the day but no hot water at night after 9pm. He added that the heat in the radiators fluctuated and cold air was radiated from 9pm but the system continued to deduct funds. He felt that the hot water should be available consistently and asked the landlord to change the heating system back to the old system which had worked satisfactorily. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response April 2021. It confirmed that its previous response was correct; the heating system had been inspected and was found to be working. It confirmed that no gas repairs had been raised since 16 November 2020. It also said that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) for a review of his complaint but also provided the Housing Ombudsman’s details in the letter.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he did not feel that the landlord had fully investigated the issues he had reported. He advised that the hot water and heating system deducted around 10p on a regular basis even when the system was not in use. He also maintained his position that the hot water worked intermittently and there was a limited amount of available hot water when running a bath. He added that at night the radiators did not work but still deducted funds. He said that the intermittent hot water and heating had impacted his wellbeing and health.
  6. The landlord has advised that in October 2021, it established that the water system had been set to ‘auto-mode’ where the system ran at a lower temperature from midnight to 6am. This had been set to start at around 10pm. This was corrected at this time and there were no further issues reported from the resident.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the issues experienced and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his heating and hot water system.

  1. The tenancy handbook confirms that the landlord would be responsible for keeping the installations in your home for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences in good repair and proper working order.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the water system in November 2020 but found no issues. It provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the credit may reduce by approximately 10p every few days as the water system had a function which allowed a small amount of water to pre-heat so that the water supply to the property was maintained at 50 degrees. It reasonably explained that this was how the system was built and it would not be able to change this function.
  3. In response to the resident’s concerns about ‘excessive usage’, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to why it did not consider there to be any high usage in the resident’s property. It has provided evidence of the resident’s usage which shows that the resident’s usage was at least 70% lower compared with the average use per flat across the block. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident’s usage had increased disproportionately which may indicate a fault in the system. The landlord explained to this Service that the meter compared usage on an individual day to the usage over the previous 14-day average. In the resident’s case, his usage some days was 0kw hours, any usage above this would be considered high usage but this did not mean that there was an issue with the system or that his usage was disproportionately high.
  4. Whilst the landlord provided a reasonable explanation of these issues, there is no evidence to suggest that it had investigated or responded to the resident’s concerns about the hot water being intermittent or his concerns about the hot water and radiators being cold after 9pm. It is noted that in October 2021 the landlord identified that the water system had been set to ‘auto mode’ which meant that only stored heat would be available after 10pm. The landlord’s records show that it was unclear how long the water system had been on this setting and noted that the resident would be entitled to a refund of credit to his pre-payment unit. The landlord does not appear to have informed the resident of this issue or credited the resident’s account accordingly. Furthermore, this issue was identified six months after the landlord’s stage two complaint response.  It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the issue at the time of the resident’s complaint to determine the cause of this. The landlord would have had the opportunity to identify and rectify this issue had it done so. The landlord’s failure to investigate this was likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident, who felt that he was not being heard and was left paying more than he should have done for the water system for a prolonged period of time due to it being on an incorrect setting.
  5. The landlord should offer the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused by this issue. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests that we may award compensation of £50 to £250 in cases where we have found service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but where this may not have significantly affected the outcome of the complaint. This would include cases where there is a failure over a considerable period of time to address repairs and failure to meet service standards. It is also recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether the issue of the hot water being lukewarm after 9pm has now been resolved. If the issue is ongoing, the landlord should carry out a further investigation to determine the cause of the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlords complaints policy states that it has a two stage formal complaints process. A response should be initially sent within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to be reviewed. The landlord should provide its review response within 20 working days. The policy confirms that the initial response would be issued by the department responsible for providing the service. The review response would be issued by an independent officer (unrelated to the complaint issue).
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code states that the person considering the complaint at the review stage, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage one (investigation stage). This is basic good practice, helps ensure impartiality, and brings in a wider perspective of the matters at hand. The Code also states that each complaint response must confirm:
    1. The complaint stage and the complaint definition.
    2. The decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
    3. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    4. Details of any outstanding actions.
    5. Details of how to escalate the matter to the next stage if the resident is not satisfied with the answer, or, if this was the final stage, details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  3. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing its complaint responses within its published timescales. However, its stage one complaint response was brief and simply said that its previous response was correct and there were no issues with the water system. The Ombudsman would expect to have seen evidence of specific actions the landlord had taken to investigate the issue such as appointment dates and findings and a conclusion on whether the correct process had been followed. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address the resident’s further concerns about the hot water being intermittent and failed to confirm how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied which is likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident. As such, the landlord failed to provide a satisfactory response to the complaint at this stage.
  4. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was similarly incomplete and did not set out the landlord’s position. It also stated that no gas repairs had been raised since 16 November 2020 but did not explain how this information was relevant. This information also caused confusion for the resident who said that his heating system was electric. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns related to his water supply after 9pm and the cold air in the radiators which he said he was being charged for which is likely to have caused further inconvenience.
  5. In addition, the landlord provided conflicting information regarding the resident’s rights to escalate his complaint further. Whilst it provided the Housing Ombudsman’s details, which was appropriate, it also stated that the resident should refer his complaint to the LGSCO and that the Housing Ombudsman investigates complaints about adult social care providers, which is inaccurate. The resident was unlikely to have been significantly inconvenienced by this element as he was able to approach this Service for investigation, however, it is recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure it provides accurate information in its complaint responses to avoid confusion in the future. This is in line with the Code which stresses the importance of the landlord  providing complainants with details of the Housing Ombudsman throughout the complaints process.

 

  1. Furthermore, both formal complaint responses were issued by the same individual member of staff. As the review was conducted by the same person who had originally responded to the complaint, the landlord did not follow its policy, and acted contrary to basic complaint handling principles of fairness and impartiality.
  2. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling in this case has been poor. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had adequately investigated the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not taken the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position, and adequately redress any identified service failings. It has also not demonstrated compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. It is also recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed. It should also ensure that complaints escalated to its review stage are investigated by an independent member of staff and its complaint responses are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about his heating and hot water system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:

a. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in investigating the resident’s concerns.

b. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

24. The landlord should reimburse the resident for any additional fees charges in error due to the water system being set to ‘auto mode’

25. The compensation and reimbursement of fees should be arranged within four weeks of the date of this decision.

 

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed and it provides accurate information to residents. It should also ensure that complaints escalated to its review stage are investigated by an independent member of staff and its complaint responses are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.