Hyde Housing Association Limited (202113286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113286

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 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 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 reports of a faulty boiler.

Background and summary of events 

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident called the landlord on 20 October 2020 to report that she had no heating or hot water; it gave her the contact details for the heating contractor. There is no evidence from the repair records to indicate it was reported to or attended by the contractor that day.
4. The repair records state the resident reported the faulty boiler again on 3 November 2020 as she had no heating or hot water. A contractor attended the same day to re-pressurise the system and noted the boiler was then working.
5. On 6 November 2020, the resident reported she had no hot water or heating again; she said the issue had been ongoing for two weeks and she had to keep resetting the boiler or wait for hours for it to resolve. She requested a new boiler.  The landlord noted to provide temporary heating if necessary. The job was marked as complete the same day.
6. The resident called the contractor on 20 November 2020 to chase follow-on works as the heating would only remain on for a couple of minutes. A contractor attended on 23 November 2021 and identified and resolved an issue with the radiator valves. It told the resident to call back in a few days if the issue persisted.
7. The resident called on 25 November 2020 to report the boiler had broken again. The job was marked as complete the same day. It is unclear from the repair records what work was undertaken but parts were ordered for follow-on works.
8. A work order was raised on 26 November 2020 to fit a programmable thermostat; it was completed on 27 November 2020.
9. There is no evidence of any further communication until the resident called the landlord on 11 March 2021 and stated the living room radiator had an uncontainable leak, and she had no hot water. A contractor attended the same day and marked the job as compete.
10. The resident reported the radiator in the hallway was leaking on 9 April 2021. The resident said the boiler had had a recurring fault message for five years. The job was marked as completed on 12 April 2021; the contractor noted there was low pressure in the boiler.
11. An engineer attended on 16 April 2021 due to no heating or hot water. The boiler was reset and was working on completion of the appointment. The contractor ordered parts for follow-up work as it noted the boiler had an ignition failure.
12. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 22 April 2021. She had been awaiting an update from the contractor since 15 April 2021. After contacting them again she was informed it had told the landlord the same day that it was not her contractor; the landlord had not informed the resident of this. She also had a gas safety check in which she said she was assured by the contractor it would forward pictures of a rusted radiator to the landlord, which it had not done.
13. On 23 April 2021 a contractor attended and “replaced time clock and re-pressurised boiler”. They said this had resolved the issue however they noted they could not access the top of the boiler due to its location, if there were any further issues two engineers would be required.
14. On 7 May 2021 a contractor attended and identified a blockage in the condense pipework; it was disconnected and terminated into a bucket as a temporary repair. A follow-up appointment was required to rerun the pipework.
15. The rusted radiator was replaced on 20 May 2021.
16. The landlord sent the stage one response on 25 August 2021. It acknowledged that the repairs should have been completed sooner and said the delays were caused by poor communication. It stated the contractors “should have been completing full tests and inspections” to resolve the issues promptly. It apologised for the delayed complaint response. It offered her compensation of £150 for her time and effort pursuing the issue and the distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered her £100 for the delay in arranging the repairs and the issuing the complaint response. It explained how she could escalate her complaint.
17. The resident sent a detailed complaint escalation on 30 August 2021. She reiterated that her boiler issues had been ongoing since October 2020 and she had been left without heating and hot water for months. She explained the health implications caused on herself and her children, that she temporality had to move to her parent’s house due to the living conditions and that she felt anxiety due to increased risk of COVID-19 caused by numerous contractors in the property. She said the electric heaters she was provided with were setting off her fire alarms, so she purchased her own. She added that she received a phone call from the contractor advising her they would be attending the property so she left work early to give access; they did not arrive and she did not receive a follow-up call.  She also explained that she had found a house swap, however, due to the delays in the repairs she lost the opportunity.
18. The landlord acknowledged the stage two escalation on 2 September 2021.
19. The landlord sent its stage two response on 7 September 2021. It increased the compensation to £650, consisting of £500 for distress and inconvenience and £150 for the delay in complaint handling. It said it had raised the issue with the contractor so engineers receive further training. It explained how she could escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
20. The repairs were completed on 1 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

21. The tenancy agreement states:
    1. The landlord will ensure all fixtures and fittings for gas and water heating are kept repaired and in working order.
22. The landlord’s online repair information states:
    1. It is responsible for maintaining gas and electrical heating, and hot water system
    2. No heating or hot water between 1 October and 31 March is classed as an emergency repair.
    3. Emergency repairs will be attended within four hours and made safe with 24 hours.
    4. All non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days.
23. The landlord’s repair policy states it will “provide an efficient, prompt, transparent and customer focused repairs service”.
24. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states:
    1. It will respond to stage one and two complaints within 20 working days.
    2. If it exceeds the response timeframe it will provide frequent updates.
    3. It will compensate for time and trouble, distress, inconvenience and to reflect where the customer has suffered a loss due to a service failure.

Boiler repairs

25. The landlord is responsible for repairs to heating and hot water installations. As the issue was initially reported in October (the start of the cold period), under the landlord’s policy, it is classed as an emergency repair so a contractor should attend within four hours/24 hours to make safe and repair. According to the repair records, the boiler issue was initially reported to the contractor on 3 November 2020; it then attended the same day, within the appropriate timeframe given that there was no indication of any need to make the boiler safe. There is no evidence of the resident reporting further issues between November 2020 and March 2021. Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to think that the issue had been resolved. Therefore, although the resident may have had no heating, or intermittent heating, during this period of time, the landlord cannot be held accountable as it can only act upon repair reports it has received. When the further reports were received the landlord arranged prompt appointments.
26. The repair records show that that the contractor repaired a variety of issues. Other than recurring issues with water pressure, there are no clear indications the faults were necessarily related. As a result, it is understandable that several appointments were required to repair the different boiler issues. The contractor raised follow-on works and ordered parts when required, which were promptly attended. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that it “should have been completing full tests and inspections”. It is possible that this may have prevented recurring appointments and the prolonged delays in fixing the boiler, reducing the overall inconvenience to the resident. To that end, the landlord demonstrated how it had learnt from the complaint by explaining more training will be provided to the contractors to potentially avoid similar situations in the future.
27. The landlord arranged for alternative heating for the resident, demonstrating that it was proactive in arranging an alternative while the boiler appointments were ongoing. It did not acknowledge that in her stage two complaint the resident stated she had to purchase her own heaters due to problems with the ones it provided. Similarly, it did not acknowledge her explanation that she temporarily moved to her parent’s house due to the ongoing boiler issue or the missed appointment. However, neither of these matters appear to have been reported to the landlord at the time they arose. Because of that, while it is clear that inconvenience and frustration was caused to the resident, the landlord did not have the opportunity to try to address those particular issues. Nonetheless, the landlord should have acknowledged and responded to these points in its final complaint response.
28. Although the landlord’s stage two response did not specifically address all of the issues the resident had raised, it offered £500 compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience she had faced, which encompassed all of her experiences. The level of compensation it offered was in line with what the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance recommends in instances of service failure over a considerable period but with no permanent impact, and which have been recognised and resolved by the landlord. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably as it responded promptly to her repair reports, provided interim heating measures and acknowledged how it could improve. It also offered £150 for the complaint handling failings due to the four-month delay in the stage one response. Although this is a clear service failure, as it did not adhere to its complaint timeframes, the substantive issue of the complaint was still being managed during that period. Therefore, it did not have a substantial impact upon the outcome of the complaint. Again, this amount is reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedy guidance.
29. Overall, as the landlord has acknowledged its failings, and offered compensation for them in line with its complaint policy, and this Service’s remedy guidance, therefore, the landlord has made reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

31. The landlord responded quickly to the residents reports of the faulty boiler and identified and resolved issues within a reasonable time. It has acknowledged where it could have improved, and offered appropriate compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident.