GreenSquareAccord Limited (202010493)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010493

GreenSquareAccord Limited

17 January 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 Housing Ombudsman (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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water and heating and repairs to her storage heaters.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughty windows.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a one bedroom, first floor flat. The tenancy started on 19 July 2019 and ended on 26 February 2021 due to the landlord arranging an emergency transfer for the resident.
The resident has vulnerabilities.
The resident reported to the landlord on 19 March 2020 that there was an issue with the living room electrical storage heater not switching off therefore causing an increase in electricity usage. The landlord raised a work order on the same date which stated the resident was self-isolating as she had Covid symptoms. This work order was then cancelled.
The landlord’s repair records indicate it raised a further work order on 31 March 2020 when the resident reiterated that the heaters at the property were using a lot of electricity. The resident said she did not have Covid symptoms but was voluntarily self-isolating due to her health conditions. The notes show that the landlord told the resident that it was only carrying out emergency visits at that time due to the national lockdown but would make an appointment once restrictions were lifted.
The landlord’s repair records show an operative attempted to visit the property on 16 July 2020 to follow up on the issue reported in March 2020 however they were unable to gain access.
On 29 September 2020, the landlord raised an emergency repair for an electrician to attend the property to repair the emersion heater due to the resident’s reporting no hot water for three days. The landlord’s notes say the resident advised that she had a disability and was pregnant. The operative attended later that day. The operative’s note stated “all working” indicating the issue had been resolved.
On 30 November 2020, the resident reported that the living room storage heater would not switch off. The landlord’s repair notes show that it raised a work order for an electrician to attend to check the heaters. The notes commented that this was a follow up of the work order originally raised on 19 March 2020.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on 2 December 2020 after the resident reported that she had no electricity. The landlord’s operative attended the same day and found that the main switch in the consumer unit had burnt out so they installed a new unit. The operative’s note stated: “all working”.
The landlord raised a further emergency repair on 4 December 2020 as the resident reported that none of her storage heaters were working. The resident reiterated that she had a disability and was 35 weeks pregnant. The landlord’s operative attended the same day and the notes stated: ‘replaced faulty 4 gang contactor and time clock’.
The resident also reported to the landlord on 4 December 2020 that the windows at the property were draughty and were letting in a lot of cold. She said they all needed resealing. It raised a work order for a carpenter to visit the property.
On 7 December 2020, the resident made a further report that she had no hot water or heating. The landlord’s operative attended the same day and the repair note stated: ‘replaced faulty rod stat’. The landlord’s operative attended again the next day when the resident advised the issue remained unresolved. The operative on this occasion replaced the double pole swich as the neutral was found to be “burnt out”.
The landlord’s operative re–attended the property on 9 December 2020 as the resident reported that the issue remained unresolved. The landlord’s notes show it fitted a new clock and switch for the emersion heater. On 10 December 2020 the landlord’s operative drained the water tank and replaced two elements. However, the repair notes stated that the water was still not getting hot, therefore the old immersion heaters were replaced with new heaters.
During contact with the resident on 10 and 11 December 2020, the landlord agreed to pay the resident compensation of £332.76 for the additional electricity incurred. The landlord’s surveyor discussed the basis of the refund with the resident.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord raised a further work order for a “heating upgrade”.
The landlord’s operative attended the property on 15 December to assess the windows and recommended that the hinges were replaced. This work was completed on 8 January 2021.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, on 18 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident acknowledging her complaint sent via the Ombudsman. It advised her that it aimed to respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord’s repair notes stated that on 7 January 2021, the heating upgrade was completed.
Following further contact from the resident on 10 January 2021, the landlord’s operative attended on 11 January 2021 to apply the mould wash to the windows.
The landlord provided a stage one response to the resident on 13 January 2021. This acknowledged that her complaint was about its handling of her reports of no hot water and heating and also about repairs to her storage heaters and windows.
Within its response it acknowledged that the resident had first reported that she was unable to turn off her heating during the first lockdown. The landlord explained that as the resident had confirmed the heating was operational she was told this repair would be booked in once restrictions were lifted as it was only attending to emergency repairs at that time. It said it then contacted the resident on 30 June 2020 once restrictions were lifted and made an appointment for 16 July 2020 however its operative was unable to gain access on this date.
It said no further contact was made by the resident until 29 September 2020 when she reported a lack of hot water. It said an operative attended that same day but no issues were identified at that time. The landlord said the resident then raised six appointments for a lack of heating /hot water which were all attended on the day they were raised. The landlord said it appreciated the need to make so many appointments must have been frustrating for the resident however operatives had to work through electrical issues such as this in a systematic manner, particularly where systems were reliant on timer components for correct operation.
The landlord acknowledged that during the timeframe up to when the fault was rectified the resident had been reliant on the day rate electric rather than overnight and consequently incurred higher costs. It said its surveyor had authorised a one-off payment of £332.76 based on over usage calculated from March 2020 to December 2020, against her actual consumption and expected consumption from her Energy Performance Certificate. The landlord said this methodology was explained to the resident and she had accepted the payment.
Regarding repairs to her windows, this repair was raised at the start of December 2020. It tried to provide a prompt repair; however, the job required operatives from different trades to attend (roofer and carpenter) due to the position of the property. It referred to the hinges being replaced on 6 January 2021 and said whilst its operative considered that no further repairs to the window were required, as the resident was dissatisfied with the repair, it arranged for its surveyor to inspect the windows. The outcome from this inspection was that whilst the frames and seals were considered to be in a reasonable condition for their age, it would renew seals to all of the windows in an attempt to resolve the reported draught. In addition to this, it would arrange draught-proofing to the front door and upgrade the extractor fan to her bathroom.
The landlord raised a work order on 14 January 2021 for the weather sills on the window frames to be renewed. When the operative attended on 22 January 2021 they did not complete the work. The repair notes suggest the operative did not think this work was needed. Later the same day, 22 January 2021, the resident sent photos and videos of the windows to the landlord. It arranged for the resident to be decanted into a hotel on 23 January 2021 and raised a work order to: “supply and fit 10x DGU to renew blown units throughout property” as it accepted the double glazing units (DGUs) had “blown”. The resident was decanted to a hotel for 7 days from 23 January 2021.
On 5 February 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that she had been placed in a hotel due to the severity of the windows however a week later that she was told she would have to return to the property even though no repairs had been carried out.
She requested escalation of her complaint to stage two of its complaints process. She said the operative who attended on 22 January 2021 had no idea what the job was and was only willing to repair the door. She said they claimed her partner was rude to him however he merely expressed frustration to do with the situation.
The resident acknowledged the landlord had now allocated her a flat however said in the meantime she was still “stuck” with the same draught issue.
On 22 February 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that the resident had told it that she was dissatisfied with its stage one response because:
1. She had been moved into a hotel for one week from 23 January 2021 due to the condition of the windows however when she moved back to the property no work had been carried out.
2. She would like to be compensated further for the financial implications this situation has had on her.
3. She wanted to know why it had taken so long to receive a response to her complaint.
4. The smart store heaters do not work efficiently due to the draught issues from the six windows and this was affecting her health.
5. The operative only repaired the door as he had no knowledge what the job was for and claimed her partner was rude to him.
The landlord explained that on the resident’s return to the property, new government rules had prevented the window operatives from attending. Further to this the government had now enforced further restrictions in her postcode. It said that unfortunately this meant that the work for the windows could not go ahead until these restrictions were lifted.
Regarding compensation, it had agreed to pay compensation of £332.76 for the extra cost of the electric heating. Due to the government guidelines that had restricted it from carrying out the repairs to her windows unfortunately no further compensation would be awarded.
It had only been made aware of her complaint in December 2021 following contact from the Ombudsman. Prior to this the issue were being dealt with by its repair operatives. Furthermore, it had only been made aware that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two when contacted by the Ombudsman.
It has spoken to the operative in question who said that her partner insisted that he follow him to the suppliers. Its repair contractor had a zero tolerance approach for any tenants/visitors to engage with their staff in this manner. All operatives had the right to leave a property wherein they feel threatened or see a situation escalating.
It confirmed that her complaint was not upheld. It acknowledged that the level of service which formed the basis of her complaint fell below the standard it would expect for which it apologised.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water and heating and repairs to her storage heaters.

The landlord’s repair policy states emergency repairs will be carried out within four hours. The policy gives an example of an emergency repair as a major leak. The policy states that for non-urgent repairs, it will arrange a suitably convenient appointment for a contractor to attend and carry out the work required. It states that non-urgent repairs are all other repairs such as minor leaks, no hot water, loose floorboards and plaster defects.
When the resident first reported that she was unable to switch off her electrical storage heaters on 19 March 2020, the landlord recorded that the resident was isolating at that time and did not progress the report because of this. Further contact from the resident a few days later suggests she had not had Covid symptoms but had been isolating. By that stage however the lockdown restrictions were in force and the landlord told her that it would attend the property to investigate the issue once restrictions were lifted as it was only attending emergencies at that time.
Due to the resident advising she was self-isolating, the landlord relied on this to information and initially did not progress the report which was understandable. Further, as the reports in March did not indicate that the issue was causing a lack of heating or hot water, the landlord’s classification of the issue as a non-emergency at this time was appropriate and it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would wait until restrictions were lifted before visiting the property.
Its records show its operatives did attempt to visit the property on 16 July 2020 once restrictions were lifted however they were unable to gain access. In its first stage complaint response the landlord said the resident had been contacted on 30 June 2020 to arrange the appointment for 16 July 2020 however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. As such it is unclear if the resident had been made unaware of the appointment or not.
There is no evidence of the resident contacting the landlord again until 29 September 2020, however, as she reported a lack of hot water on 30 September, the landlord raised an emergency repair and an operative attended the same day to investigate this report; this was appropriate. Their comment: “all working” indicated that the issue was resolved during this visit.
The resident raised the same issue with the landlord approximately two months later on 30 November 2020 when she reported she could not switch the storage heater off. This may have been due to the original fault having not been fully resolved by the landlord on its previous visit or because there was a further fault with the heaters. However, as there had been no contact from the resident for two months it was reasonable for the landlord to assume the issue had been resolved prior to the resident’s contact of 30 November 2020. The landlord raised a work order the same day for an electrician to attend with a target date of 4 December 2020. This visit was later expediated when the resident reported no heating or hot water on 2 December 2020.
A new main switch was fitted by the operative on this date which they deemed had resolved the issue. However, further repairs were required two days later when the resident reported the same issue. Despite additional repairs made by operatives on 7, 8 and 9 December 2021, due to the issue continuing, on 10 December 2020 they replaced the immersion heaters. The landlord then carried out a full heating upgrade which was completed on 7 January 2021.
Therefore, the delay with investigating the resident’s initial report of an issue with her storage heaters was due to government restrictions in place at the time which only allowed for landlord to carry out emergency repairs. The landlord took steps to follow up on the issue once restrictions had been lifted. It also responded to each subsequent report reasonably and within the timescales in its repair policy, including as an emergency when the resident reported no heating or hot water. As the fault with heating could not be effectively resolved by the series of repairs undertaken during the start of December, the landlord’s replacement of the heaters on 10 December and subsequent upgrade of the heating system addressed the issue. Overall, the landlord’s approach to dealing the electrical issues reported was appropriate.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that during conversations with the resident on 10 and 11 December 2020 it agreed to pay her £332.76 in compensation to cover the additional electricity used since March 2020 when the resident initially reported a problem with the heaters. The evidence indicates it explained the basis of the calculation to the resident after she had supplied her electricity bills which shows she had paid a total of £1,037.54 for electricity since March 2020. The compensation was a refund of the additional cost incurred based on the landlord’s view of what average, expected usage for the type of heaters and size of the property. The resident remains dissatisfied with the amount she was compensated however due to a lack of evidence showing that a higher sum was justified, there is no basis to find that the landlord’s offer was unreasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughty windows.

When the resident reported that the windows were draughty on 4 December 2020, the landlord raised a work order for a carpenter to attend the property. They replaced the window hinges on 8 January 2021 however considered that no further work was required. As the resident then complained this work had not resolved the draught issue, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 14 January 2020 to assess the condition of the windows. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said whilst the surveyor had found the window frames to be in a reasonable condition, as there was draught around the panes, the windows would be resealed. The landlord raised a work order at that time which included for the front door to be draught-proofed and the extractor fan upgraded. The landlord’s response in this regard was reasonable.
However, the windows were not resealed when the operative attended on 22 January 2021. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes indicate this was because the operative considered this work was not needed. However, the parties subsequent communications indicate they were in dispute about reason for the work not being completed at that time. In her 5 February 2021 escalation request, the resident disputed her partner had been rude to the operative and claimed they had arrived not knowing what work was required. In its final response the landlord said it had spoken to its operative who had explained that the resident’s partner had “insisted” that he follow the operative to the suppliers and it said its contractors had a “zero-tolerance” approach towards tenants who engage with its staff in this manner which the landlord said it supported.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the landlord’s internal communications with its operative in relation to the 22 January 2021 visit therefore it is unclear whether the work was not carried out due to the behaviour of resident’s partner or if it was due to another reason.
After the resident sent photos and a video to the landlord later on 22 January 2021, it agreed that the DGUs had blown and it arranged for the resident to be decanted to a hotel for 7 days from 23 January 2021. Whilst the landlord raised a work order for a renewal of the DGUs throughout the property, this work was not carried whilst the resident was decanted or during the subsequent weeks prior to the landlord’s arranging the resident’s transfer to another property on 26 February 2021.
Therefore, whilst the landlord did take steps to address the reports of draughty windows which the landlord confirmed was as a result of the DGUs having “blown”, this did not result in this issue being effectively resolved over the subsequent 2 to 3 months before the resident moved. According to the landlord’s stage two response, its window contractors had been prevented from carrying out the replacement work due to new government rules and local restrictions. A national lockdown began on 4 January 2021 although it is noted that guidance at this time was that landlords could carry out repairs if in line with public health advice. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the local restrictions referred to by the landlord nonetheless, it is acknowledged that Covid may have impacted the landlord’s glazing contractor’s ability to complete work within a reasonable timeframe after the order was raised on 26 January 2021 therefore causing a delay.
However, as this issue was initially reported by the resident on 4 December 2020, the lack of an effective resolution provided since this date whilst the resident remained at the property was unreasonable; particularly as it was winter and the resident was heavily pregnant something she had made the landlord aware of whilst the issue was being encountered.
The landlord provided an apology in its stage two response for the level of service provided having fallen below the standard it expected. It is acknowledged that the landlord arranged an emergency property transfer for the resident however, it is unclear from the available evidence if the reasons for this related to the repair issues being encountered at the property. Regardless, on balance it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a measure of compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the length of time the draughty windows remained unresolved before she moved.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of no hot water and heating and repairs to her storage heaters.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of draughty windows.

Reasons

There was a delay in investigating the resident’s initial reports of an issue with her electrical heaters however this was because the reports coincided with the start of the pandemic when it was only carrying out emergency repairs. The landlord did respond to subsequent reports within the timescales stated in its repair policy and took reasonable steps to repair the heaters until it took the decision to replace the heaters at the property when it became clear the repairs had not adequately addressed the problem. This remedy provided and the compensation offered is evidence of the landlord dealing with the reports appropriately and proportionally.
The landlord took steps to address the draughty windows reported by the resident however they did not effectively resolve the issue. Whilst some delays were out of the landlord’s control such as those caused by Covid which impacted the timeframe taken by glazing contractors to complete work, overall the length of time the issue remained unresolved was unreasonable. As the landlord did not offer compensation in recognition of this during its complaints process, on balance it did not reasonably resolve the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £150 in compensation for its failure to adequately deal with the reports of draughty windows at the property.
2. Comply with the above order within four weeks.