Cossington Housing Co-operative Limited (202215613)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215613

Cossington Housing Co-operative Limited

19 July 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s broken boiler and his subsequent request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord has stated that the resident reported that his boiler had broken, and that he had no heating or hot water on the evening of 21 July 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended the next morning to assess the boiler. It attended again that evening, but was unable to fix the boiler as it needed to order a new part. The landlord was unable to obtain the part immediately, as its suppliers were closed due to it being a Friday evening.
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 24 July 2022. He was unhappy with the length of time that the landlord was taking to repair his boiler. He said his electric bill would rise due his increased usage of the kitchen kettle to boil water. He asked to be compensated £500 for the stress and inconvenience.
5. The landlord followed up on the repair on Monday, 25 July 2022. Its contractors could not attend until the next day, so it engaged an independent contractor to complete the works. The new contractor obtained the part for the boiler and attended on 25 July 2022, completing the works and leaving the boiler in working order. The landlord updated the resident on his complaint on 15 August 2022. It said it was waiting for information from its contractor before it could provide a response.
6. The landlord sent its complaint response on 23 August 2022. It explained that it had responded to the resident’s repair report as quickly as possible, and within its service guidelines. The landlord explained that it had engaged an alternative contractor to complete the works, to shorten the length of time the resident was without hot water and heating. It did not identify any service failure in its provision of service and declined to offer compensation.
7. A copy of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint has not been provided for this investigation. The landlord has stated that it acknowledged an escalation request, regarding the resident’s request for compensation, on 23 September 2022.
8. The landlord sent its final response on 7 October 2022. It concluded that there was no evidence to show that the resident had incurred additional costs due to the outstanding repairs. It also stated that it had attended within its repair service timescales and rectified the fault. Therefore, as it had not seen evidence of a failing, it would not offer compensation.
9. In his complaint to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied with the time the landlord took to resolve the repair. He sought compensation of £500, in recognition of his stress and inconvenience.

Assessment

10. The landlord’s repair policy defines responsive repairs as isolated repairs that are carried out in response to reports from residents. The landlord will prioritise repairs as either emergency, urgent or standard. Emergency repairs are where the issue may result in harm to people or damage to property. The landlord will attend such repairs within 24 hours. The policy states that carrying out an emergency repair will involve making the home safe and secure. Subsequent necessary repairs will be carried out according to the priority of works needed.
11. Once the resident reported that his boiler was broken on 21 July 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by classifying the repair as an emergency. It attended within its emergency timescales of 24 hours and inspected the boiler on 22 July 2022. It was unable to fix the boiler on its first visit. It attended again that afternoon, and concluded that an additional part was needed to rectify the issue. It acted appropriately, and in-line with the above polices and made the boiler safe for over the weekend. It returned the following week for the subsequent necessary repairs.
12. After the weekend, the landlord acted appropriately by following up on the repair on the Monday morning of 25 July 2022. It found that its contractors could not attend until the next day. The landlord acted proactively by engaging an independent contractor, as it wished to lessen the impact of the repair on the resident. This was appropriate, as the landlord was doing everything it could to repair the resident’s boiler as quickly as possible. The independent contractor o the obtained the part and completed the repairs on 25 July 2022. The resident was without the use of his boiler for a total of three days, which included a weekend. In the circumstances, the time taken to resolve the repair was reasonable when measured against a relevant time frame (three working days for loss of heating and hot water during the summer period, recommended by the local authority Right to Repair scheme).
13. In its assessment of the resident’s compensation request the landlord noted that the resident had access to bathing facilities, as he has an electric shower. It also noted that the boiler had broken over the summer months, which if felt lessened the impact of being without heating for a few days.
14. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses by explaining that it had attended within timescales and completed the resident’s works. In its final response, it explained that the resident’s claim for compensation had been progressed to an independent panel for review. It explained that the resident had not provided evidence of any increased expenditure due to this repair. It also stated that it was unable to identify any service failure on its part, as it had acted according to its policies and service standards. Because of that it concluded it could not justify an award of compensation. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates its decision was unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.