Hyde Housing Association Limited (202114466)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114466

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 August 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 response to the resident’s:
1. concerns about the price of their energy bills, following the installation of a new boiler.
2. request for a replacement boiler.
3. request to be moved from their property.
4. associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The resident’s boiler caught fire around February 2020, which required it to be replaced. The landlord replaced the boiler in March 2020 with a different, electric boiler.
Following installation of the electric boiler, the resident reported a substantial increase in the cost of their energy bill to the landlord. The resident requested a reimbursement of the additional costs and provided the landlord with historic energy bills for comparison. The resident also questioned why the landlord had not identified the need for additional ventilation for the boiler when it had been installed, and why there were delays in completing these works.
The landlord contacted the resident about their complaint in June 2021 and gave an acknowledgment in July 2021. As the installation of the new boiler had been carried out by a contractor, the landlord requested information from the contractor before issuing a response. The contractor said:
1. There had been delays due to the pandemic and the resident having cancelled “several” appointments.
2. There had been discussions about who was responsible for the installing of additional ventilation, which had also caused delays.
3. High energy bills were “unavoidable”, and a gas alternative was not an option. However, the high energy bills could be due to the resident “not using the boiler properly”.
4. The thermostats in each room were for the underfloor heating and not the boiler. A separate programmer had been fitted for the boiler and water temperature was set to prevent “Legionnaire’s disease”.
5. The contractor had not seen any proof that the boiler had been set up incorrectly, as it would have followed the relevant manufacturer’s guidance in setting this up.
During internal communications, the landlord said that the increased energy bills had started when the new boiler had been installed. It also confirmed that it had received similar reports from other residents. The landlord also said that it would be making an application for a rent relief grant on behalf of the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident in September 2021 to update them, including the information it had been provided with by the contractor. The landlord also apologised for “poor complaint handling” and the lack of responses it had sent to the resident. The resident responded in October 2021 and requested evidence of the delays the landlord/contractor had experienced with suppliers and ordering parts for the boiler, due to the pandemic. The landlord responded and said that the update had not been a stage one complaint response, and that it would need an extension until 27 October 2021 to provide one.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 5 November 2021. It acknowledged the complaint points the resident had addressed and responded to each, saying:
1. It could have done more regarding the issues with additional ventilation and could have acted sooner when the resident raised issues with increased energy bills. The landlord referred to the pandemic having caused delays but acknowledged a lack of urgency.
2. It agreed to review the heating system and consider whether it should be replaced. It also agreed to consider reimbursing energy costs when the resident provided historic energy bills, for comparison. The landlord referred to the difficulty of arranging a refund, as its compensation policy did not allow for reimbursement of energy bills.
3. The new system was “generally more expensive to run” and it had been attempting to investigate the issue.
4. There had been delays in the complaint handling, which the landlord apologised for. It made an offer of £200 compensation for the failings identified by the landlord and confirmed information about the failings had been passed to senior landlord staff, to learn from them.
The resident remained dissatisfied, and the landlord confirmed escalation to stage two of its complaint process in December 2021.
Between April 2022 and May 2022, the resident and landlord communicated via email. The resident said their neighbour, who had the same issue, had been reimbursed for their energy bill. The resident also stated:
1. Their outstanding energy bill was around £3000 and that they would be cancelling the direct debit to pay their rent, until the issue was resolved.
2. They remained unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action and willingness to support them.
3. They were still awaiting updates regarding the replacement boiler and energy bill issue.
4. The contractor had told them the replacement boiler had been delayed by 7 months, therefore it would not be installing it and would look at alternatives.
5. The landlord had not communicated any changes to the plan with the resident and it had not consulted with them.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 June 2022. They referred to their complaint about the boiler and said they were still waiting for the landlord’s response. The resident also contacted their local MP, requesting their involvement in the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 June 2022. It said “We [the landlord] have decided to replace your heating unit. We propose to cover your utility bill debt up to the point the situation is resolved by the new installation, provided this happens promptly. In covering your reasonable utility debt, we do intend to take account of the £1,900 support payment we have already made to you in October 2021.” The landlord increased the offer of compensation to £250 and said it would be in touch to arrange the replacement of the boiler. The landlord also confirmed it would not consider a request for the resident to be rehoused, as its aim was to put the resident back in the position they would have been in had the new boiler not been installed.
The landlord confirmed (internally) that the replacement boiler was due for delivery in mid-July 2022 and that it would contact the resident to arrange an appointment, after receipt of the boiler. The landlord said it aimed to book an appointment for no later than 25 July 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 20 July 2022 to explain the contractor had confirmed a delay in obtaining the replacement boiler. The landlord said this was due to a shortage of parts and that the delay would be an additional 2-3 weeks.
The resident contacted a solicitor in October 2022, as the issue remained outstanding. The resident said:
1. They had been told by the landlord that a new boiler would be installed, but they were now five weeks beyond the agreed date and had not been provided with any work order details.
2. They were unable to stay in a hotel while the issue is ongoing and that the landlord should arrange a decant (temporary move) from the property, as it had “zero heating”.
3. The plug-in heater being used could not be used as it would trip the electric, due to a faulty socket.
4. The landlord was aware of the resident’s depression and anxiety.
5. Their partner had passed away due to pneumonia, which the resident attributed to the lack of heating at the property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 October 2022. They said that the landlord had attended their property unannounced and consequently not been given access. The resident said this was because they were involved in confidential telephone calls at the time. They asked whether the landlord had contacted social services because of being unable to gain access to the property, as social services had been in touch with the resident. The resident also asked why the landlord had not arranged an out-of-hours repair to the fuse, to allow them to use the plug-in heater, and why it had not agreed to a decant from the property.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again in January 2023. They said the heating and fuse were still not working. To resolve the complaint, the resident requested for the outstanding repairs to be completed, appropriate compensation for the issues they had experienced and an apology from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The resident has reported to the Ombudsman and the landlord, that the issues that form the substance of their complaint have impacted on their health. The Ombudsman can understand that this situation has been very stressful for the resident and we do not doubt their comments about their health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between these matters and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that their health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in in their complaint. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health.
The resident has raised issues which occurred after the landlord’s complaint process had been exhausted, such as the replacement boiler not working, gaps in doors causing drafts and ongoing issues with electrics in the property.
The rules which govern our service are set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (published on our website) In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered issues which occurred after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint in June 2022. The resident should report any required repairs to the landlord. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the further repairs she can raise a new complaint about this to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman at that stage.

The resident’s concerns about the price of their energy bills

In line with the tenancy agreement which would have been in place between the landlord and resident, the landlord was responsible for keeping the property in good repair – this included the boiler and linked heating system. Any repair issues related to the boiler would therefore be handled in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Following the irreparable damage to the resident’s boiler in February 2020, the landlord decided to replace it. This was a decision the landlord had been entitled to make and one which meant the property remained of a lettable standard. The landlord also demonstrated a willingness and ability to provide a replacement with some urgency, installing the new boiler in March 2020. While the decision to replace the boiler may have been appropriate, the Ombudsman also expects the landlord to have communicated that decision to the resident. The landlord should have provided information about the new system, including how to use it and any implications the new system would have on the resident, such as any potential increase in energy costs.
The landlord has provided evidence that shows it had been aware of the potential increase in costs prior to the boiler installation, saying that it “knew their [the resident’s] bills would go up considerably”. It is expected that an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) is produced when work of this nature is completed, as this is a legal requirement. The landlord’s stock investment delivery procedure also states “An EPC should be produced following completion of the following stock investment works: heating, boilers, insulation. These will be sent to the Asset Management Team…”. This evidence shows the landlord had known enough information prior to installation to be able to explain the potential impact the new boiler would have on the resident. However, it failed to do so. The landlord had also made an indication the increased energy bills had been because of the resident not using the boiler correctly. The landlord and/or its contractor should have told the resident how to use the boiler correctly during or after installation. The resident was not at fault for not knowing how to use the system properly when they were not clearly told how to use it.
The Ombudsman has identified the landlord’s willingness to put things right for the resident. It acknowledged the significant increase in the resident’s energy bills, following the installation of the new boiler, and agreed to reimburse additional costs. The landlord made a reasonable request to the resident in asking for historic energy bills for comparison. It also made a discretionary support payment of £1900 to the resident in October 2021. The Ombudsman has found this arrangement to have been fair and proportionate given the circumstances, providing the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the whole period the new boiler had been in place. The Ombudsman has also found it to have been a fair requirement for the landlord to only agree a reimbursement of energy bills if the resident was able to provide historic energy bills, which the Ombudsman understands they were able to provide. It was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence before paying these costs.

The landlord’s handling of replacing the new boiler

The landlord agreed to consider whether the new boiler required replacing in its stage one complaint response on 15 November 2021. The landlord did not confirm the action it would be taking until it issued a stage two complaint response, on 6 June 2022. It confirmed it would be replacing the heating unit and that it would be in touch to confirm installation of the replacement boiler.
While the landlord indicated it would need to “consider” whether the new boiler required replacing, the Ombudsman would still expect this to have been done within a reasonable timescale. Instead, the resident waited a total of 203 days for the landlord to make its decision to replace the boiler, which the Ombudsman has found to be an unreasonable amount of time.
Where delays occur, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to communicate with residents to inform them of the cause and/or any new proposed deadlines. However, there was a lack of communication from the landlord to the resident in this case, between November 2021 and June 2022. The resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions to request an update but was not provided with one. The resident had also suggested the contractor had confirmed a delay of “7 months” to install a new boiler and that it would instead consider alternatives. However, the landlord did not communicate this or any other information relating to the replacement to the resident. Given the new boiler was still in place during this time, it meant the resident would have continued to receive higher utility bills, likely adding to the distress the situation was causing. This demonstrated a substantial failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
Having decided the new boiler required replacing, the landlord was expected to act within a reasonable timescale. This should have been a priority for the landlord, given the experience the resident had up until that time, and the resident’s vulnerabilities which the landlord had been aware of. The landlord’s repairs policy also refers to timescales it must adhere to when arranging repairs. Repairs are categorised as one of the following: emergency, anytime or major. Each of these categories has a separate timescale attached to them. As this case involves a working boiler as well as the potential for the resident to have had no heating/hot water, the Ombudsman has considered both “emergency” and “anytime” timescales, which are:
1. Emergency – attendance within 4 hours to make safe within 24 hours.
2. Anytime – within the contractors working hours and 20 working days.
The landlord identified the need to replace the boiler on 6 June 2022 and stated it had “been able to source a replacement”, therefore it was reasonable to assume that this would have been fitted before the end of June 2022. However, the resident has confirmed the boiler was not replaced until September 2022, around 3 months after the landlord had confirmed the action it would be taking. This demonstrated a substantial delay in completing the repair, which further prolonged the period of higher energy bills and distress caused to the resident.
The resident also mentioned in their complaint that they feel the landlord should have decanted them. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to demonstrate the landlord considered a decant during the time the issues were ongoing. Whilst a decant may not be necessary in every case where there is a lack of heating and/or hot water, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a decant in this case due to the length of time the issue was outstanding for and the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. If it did not consider a decant to be a suitable option, then it should have explained why to the resident, in response to their enquiry about this.
The Ombudsman has found the failings identified in this case require action from the landlord to put things right for the resident. While the landlord made a final offer of £250 compensation, this service has found that amount to have not been proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The resident had waited 203 days before being told their boiler would be replaced. They waited an additional 3 months before the landlord replaced it, demonstrating the landlord’s failure to adhere to the appropriate repairs policy and causing continued distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and acknowledged those failings. However, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has determined £400 to be proportionate to the failures and continued distress and inconvenience for the resident caused by the delays in replacing their boiler.

The resident’s request to be moved from the property

The resident requested to be permanently moved from their property as a resolution to the ongoing issues with the boiler and replacing of the boiler. The landlord rejected this request in its stage two complaint response, saying a rehousing request “would not be considered” as it aimed to put the resident back in the position they had been, prior to the installation of the new boiler in March 2021.
A landlord should consider a resident’s request for compensation, monetary or otherwise. If it disagrees with the request, it should provide a fair and timely explanation setting out the reasons for disagreeing. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s explanation for not considering the resident’s request, set out at stage two of the complaint process, to have been reasonable. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to rehouse the resident when it had identified the boiler could be replaced which would bring the property back into a lettable condition. When a landlord identifies a failing in its handling of an issue, it should seek to put the resident back in the position they would have been had the failing/s not occurred. In this case, providing an alternative property for the resident would have put them in a different and potentially “better” position. While rehousing can be appropriate in some instances, the Ombudsman has found the landlord’s decision to reject the resident’s request in this case to have been fair and appropriate.
If the resident considers that they need to be rehoused for other reasons, aside from the boiler issue, they can make a formal request for rehousing to the landlord. The landlord would be expected to consider the resident’s request and respond in line with its housing allocations property. Landlords will generally only agree to move residents in exceptional circumstances such as if their current property is unsuitable for them due to medical needs or if it is too small for their household, meaning they are overcrowded. The resident may also wish to consider other options for rehousing such as a mutual exchange and the landlord should provide information to the resident on their rehousing options if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two-stage approach to complaint handling. It also sets out the timescales associated with each stage; these are:
1. Stage one – the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days of receipt.
2. Stage two – the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days of receipt.
3. Where a delay occurs and the landlord requires an extension, it would be expected to communicate with the resident and agree a revised deadline.
The landlord first demonstrated knowledge of the complaint on 29 June 2021, when it summarised the complaint points in an email to the resident. An official acknowledgement was sent to the resident 20 working days later, on 27 July 2021 and the landlord provided a stage one complaint response 73 working days later, on 5 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged escalation of the complaint on 6 December 2021 and provided a stage two response 192 working days later, on 16 June 2022.
The landlord demonstrated a substantial failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint, providing a delayed response at every stage of the complaint process. The resident’s complaint remained unresolved for a total of 245 working days, which is a substantial amount of time to be waiting for a resolution. This failure would have further added to the distress and inconvenience the substantive issue had already been causing to the resident.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above, awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has acknowledged those failings, however, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord identified delays and addressed them in its responses to the resident. However, the solution it offered fell short of being proportionate to the substantial delays the resident experienced. Therefore, this service has determined an alternative offer of £250 to be fair and proportionate to address the errors in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(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 about the price of the resident’s energy bills satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of replacing the resident’s new boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be moved from their property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

If it has not already been done and as per the agreement it set out during its complaint process, the landlord is ordered to reimburse the energy bill costs for the duration the new boiler had been in place at the resident’s property (March 2021 – September 2022), providing the resident is able to provide the required historic energy bills.
The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £650, made up of:
1. £400 for the delays and associated failings experienced by the resident when handling the replacing of their new boiler.
2. £250 for the substantial delays experienced during the handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should deduct the £250 it offered during the complaint process from the £650 if this has already been paid.
The landlord should provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified during this investigation and experienced by the resident.
The landlord must confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman identified miscommunication between the landlord, resident and contractor during the investigation. The landlord should review its relationship with any contractors to ensure communication is efficient and delays are avoided where possible. Where delays are unavoidable, the landlord should ensure an explanation is provided to the residents affected.
The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly on providing timely responses at all stages of the complaint process.
The landlord should review its process of updating residents regarding ongoing repair work to ensure they are kept informed, particularly when there are delays.