GreenSquare Group Limited (202210565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210565

GreenSquare Group Limited

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the safety of his heating system.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house and has an assured tenancy. He moved to the property via mutual exchange on 15 October 2021.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord attended to conduct a repair to the heating system. The landlord’s repair notes state that the cylinder looked old, was running out of hot water prematurely, and was scaled up. The operative advised it needed to be replaced, as well as a room thermostat.
On 7 January 2022, the landlord replaced the cylinder and fitted the new thermostat. It also:
1. re-wired the heater, as it said the wiring was “shocking and all over the place.”
2. noted that earths were used as switches.
3. altered the pipework to suit the new cylinder.
4. re-filled the tank to ensure there were no leaks.
5. noted that a new cable to the immersion needed to be installed by an electrician, as the old cable only just reached and was tight.
On the same evening the cylinder was installed, the resident reported that all the plug sockets had blown. The landlord attended and was unable to identify the fault with the electrics but noted that the wiring to the boost element needed to be re-wired. A new isolation switch was also fitted as the rocker switch was faulty.
The landlord attended on 8 January 2022 to review ongoing issues with the electrics tripping. It did not identify any electrical faults. It said that there was hot water but there was no heating. The port head was changed and the operative reported that it was now switching over as it should. The landlord’s notes state that it needed a full re-wire.
On 13 January 2022, the landlord attended the property and advised the resident that the wiring completed during the installation of the cylinder was left in an “unsafe” condition. It made safe the wiring. The landlord’s repair log stated the unsafe wiring was reported to its quality team.
The landlord attended again on 20 January 2022 to investigate the radiator’s banging and the boiler. The landlord did not identify any repairs.
The landlord attended on 10 February 2022 to undertake further repairs to the electrics. The resident denied access to the landlord’s operative as it was the same operative who completed the original installation, which was later deemed unsafe. The resident said he did not want the operative carrying out work in his home.
The resident lodged a complaint on 18 February 2022. The resident complained that:
1. the work done was not completed to a satisfactory standard.
2. he had been advised the wiring was unsafe.
3. he was concerned that the electrics kept tripping.
4. he was concerned that the operative who installed the cylinder was not a qualified electrician.
5. he was concerned for the safety of his family, himself, and his neighbours.
On 25 February 2022, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident. She said that the resident was told that the work conducted was not safe or legal. She explained that the heating system was still leaking and there were exposed wires. She asked the landlord to send a qualified electrician to assess the work and replace the wires if needed.
The landlord provided its step 2 complaint response on 4 March 2022. The landlord:
1. confirmed that the resident had been informed the cylinder needed to be replaced.
2. apologised that the resident had needed to chase for the work to be done, which was completed on 7 January 2022.
3. advised that both a plumber and an engineer had attended to replace the cylinder and reported that it needed to be re-wired.
4. said the resident had turned away the operative who attended on 10 February 2022, as it was the same operative who carried out the initial work.
5. stated that contractors attended on 22 February 2022 to re-wire and install a new thermostat.
6. confirmed that the resident had been at no risk from the wiring.
7. agreed it should have followed up sooner and apologised for this.
8. stated that the reason for the re-wire was not that it was unsafe, but due to the immersion heater being larger and in a slightly different place.
9. advised that the installers did not have a recognised electrical qualification as it was not a compliance requirement.
10. that the operatives were competent to work on all electrical components for heating installations.
11. offered £130 compensation which included, £50 for delays and £80 for the days the resident had no heating.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response. He believed that it was inappropriate that those installing electrical components had no recognised qualifications to do the electrical work and he believed the system was not safe to use, and that he was therefore not using it.
The landlord provided its step 3 complaint response on 10 March 2022. The landlord stated:
1. it was satisfied that its investigation and complaint response were appropriate and fair, and covered all points raised.
2. that gas engineers did not need electrical qualifications as it was not a compliance requirement.
3. that the operatives were trained to work on all electrical aspects of heating installations.
4. that although the wiring was not as neat as it would have liked, it was safe.
5. it could not identify a leak.
6. it would not be replacing the cylinder, or amending the compensation offered.
On 11 March 2022, the MP wrote to the landlord advising that the tank was still leaking and therefore dangerous. She informed the landlord that the resident had lost all confidence in the operatives and asked it to send a contractor to assess the hot water tank.
In or around August 2022, the landlord attempted to organise its annual gas safety inspection with the resident. The resident advised the landlord that he wanted the outstanding issues with the heating system repaired first. Following two gas check appointments being cancelled by the resident, the landlord informed the resident that under the terms of his tenancy agreement, he was required to allow access for the gas safety check to be completed.
The resident agreed to an appointment on 3 October 2022 to carry out the gas safety check and investigate the ongoing issues with the heating system. The contractors completed the gas safety inspection and investigated the issues with the water cylinder. The landlord’s repair logs show that on 25 October 2022, it chased the contractor for their report in order to allow it to assess if further work was required. There is no evidence beyond this date to show a resolution on this point.
As of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman understands that the landlord has not provided a copy of the gas safety installation report to the resident. He further states that the boiler and electrics have not been repaired.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement is a legally binding document that both the resident and the landlord are bound by. Section 11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and hot water. This would include the boiler and central heating system.
Where a repair is reported, the law states that a landlord must inspect to determine if it is responsible to repair. Where the landlord is responsible, it must conduct a repair within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the facts, including the type of repair. In most cases, landlords have repairs policies that set out when repairs ought to be completed.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as follows:
1. P1 – Emergency – the landlord will attend within four hours and complete within 24 hours. This is for repairs that are an immediate danger to customers or cause severe damage to the property.
2. P2 – Urgent – the landlord will respond within seven days. This is for repairs where there is no immediate danger.
3. P3 – Routine – standard repairs that the landlord will complete within 28 days.
The landlord attended the property on 28 October 2021, and identified that the cylinder needed to be replaced. In line with its policy, it should have completed the repair within 28 days. The landlord completed the repair on 7 January 2022, which was 71 days later, this is a failure on the landlord’s part.
On the same day the cylinder was replaced, the resident reported that his electrics were tripping. The landlord attended the same evening as an emergency. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s policy. It was unable to identify the fault. It did identify that the wiring “was not great” and needed to be re-wired. In line with its policy, the landlord should have completed the rewiring within seven working days. It failed to do this.
The evidence shows that the resident continued to report ongoing issues with the electrics. The landlord’s repair log dated 13 January 2022, states that the wiring had been left in an “unsafe way” and was reported to the quality services team as such. The landlord continued to be unable to identify an electrical fault. The landlord should have instructed an appropriately qualified electrician to carry out further investigations, or an electrical survey. It failed to do this which was unacceptable.
The resident’s complaint focused on the operative who initially attended to carry out the installation not being a qualified electrician. The resident was worried for the safety of his family due to the wiring not being safe.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that.

“All operatives undertaking gas work will be gas safety registered and hold the required competencies (ACS) to undertake their work. No operative shall carry out work unless they hold in date competencies for the appliance/installation they are going to work on”.

In its complaint responses, the landlord advised that the operative did not have a qualification to undertake electrical work as it was not a compliance requirement, but that the operative was competent to work on electrical components for heating installations. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and taken further steps to reassure the resident that the installation was done safely and in line with all and any regulations.
The landlord also stated that the reason for the re-wire was not due to it being unsafe, but due to the immersion heater being larger and in a slightly different place. This is contradictory to what the resident was told and what is written in the landlord’s own repair logs about the wiring being ‘unsafe’. The landlord’s evidence to this service shows that the quality of the electrical work was referred to its own quality standards team. It stated that the wires were left exposed and unsafe. The complaint responses suggested that this was not the case.
However, it would be reasonable to conclude that a fault existed based on the report that the wires were unsafe and reports that the electrics were tripping. It was the landlord’s responsibility at that time to have made good any faults and reassured the resident that his home was safe. It failed to do this.
In,or around August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange the annual gas safety inspection. The resident advised the landlord that he was still having problems with the heating system ,and the electrics. He said that he had lost faith in the landlord being able to resolve the issues. He asked that a contractor attend to resolve the issues and do the gas check. The landlord agreed to a contractor carrying out the gas safety check and to investigate the issues the resident had raised. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
The gas safety inspection was carried out on 3 October 2022. The landlord’s policy stated that it would send a copy of the gas safety report to the resident within 28 days of the safety check. The evidence shows the landlord chased the contractor on 25 October 2022 for the report. There is no further evidence beyond this to determine the content of any report or any follow-up work recommended.
In correspondence with this service, the resident stated that he has not received any further updates from the landlord about the boiler, or electrics and that he has not received a copy of the gas safety inspection report. This is a service failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s boiler and electrics.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a defective heating system. This is because it failed to have the works appropriately assessed in light of the evidence that the works had been completed unsatisfactorily and it has not attempted to reassure the resident that his home is safe.

Orders

The ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £700 for the distress, anxiety and concerns experienced as a result of fearing the electrics were not safe and a danger to him, and his family.
2. arrange for a qualified electrician (EICR) to carry out a full assessment of the electrics for the heating system, including any associated cabling and re-wiring that is relevant to its functionality. Once the assessment is completed, the landlord must arrange for the work to be done within 28 days of receipt of the assessment. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order.
3. arrange for an independent heating specialist to carry out a full assessment of the heating system, to determine if it is fit for purpose and works effectively and efficiently. Once the assessment is completed, the landlord must arrange for the work to be done within 28 days of receipt of the assessment. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order.