Kingston upon Thames Council (201916059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916059

Kingston upon Thames Council

17 January 2021

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 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 a faulty boiler and immersion heater.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a Secure Tenant of the property, which is a two-storey maisonette within a block of 14 properties.

The landlord has provided the resident with a Single Point of Contact (SPOC). The resident has been advised to send all correspondence to her SPOC except where emergencies are concerned.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.

Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once a reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Tenancy agreement

The Ombudsman has reviewed the tenancy agreement. From this, the Ombudsman has noted that:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for space heating and heating water.
2. The resident is entitled to reimbursement of heating/hot water service charges in the event of loss of supply for a period of more than one week occurring either continuously or intermittently over a longer period.
3. The landlord will make good any damage caused during repairs or the resident may be entitled to an allowance to redecorate.
4. The landlord will remove its rubbish, building materials and equipment upon completion of works.
5. Residents may be entitled to compensation if the landlord fails to undertake repairs which it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time.

Repair Policy

The landlord has provided the Housing Ombudsman Service with a copy of its repair policy. This outlines the landlord’s repair timescales and indicates that:
1. For urgent repairs (e.g. loss of heating and hot water), steps will be taken to address the issue within 24 hours. Where this cannot be done because there is a need to obtain parts, an alternative source of heating will be provided.
2. All routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.

Corporate complaints, comments, and compliments procedure

The landlord has also provided the Housing Ombudsman Service with a copy of its corporate complaints procedure. Of particular relevance, this details the landlord’s complaints process and indicates that:
1. The landlord will attempt initial contact resolution where it will seek to achieve the expected outcome at the earliest opportunity.
2. At stage one, if the complaint cannot be resolved through initial contact resolution, the complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and a full response provided within 15 working days. An extension may be agreed of no more than 10 working days.
3. At stage two, if the complainant is still dissatisfied, the review request will be acknowledged within five working days and a response provided within 15 working days. In some cases, an extension may be necessary and should be agreed with the complainant.

Scope

Within the evidence provided, the Ombudsman has seen further complaints relating to:
1. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) arrangement.
2. The resident’s dissatisfaction with a delay in having a water meter installed.
3. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to only attend her property with other members of staff present.

The Ombudsman notes that these complaints have been determined by this Service under the following references:

201910627

202000332

201914481

Subsequently, these matters have not been commented on or included within this report. As per paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.

Summary of events

On 6 March 2020 the resident reported a boiler leak. The landlord’s Out of Hours (OOH) team attended the resident’s property on the same evening and her boiler was turned off. She was informed that she could rely on an immersion heater for hot water and heating until the boiler was repaired.

The resident followed this up with several emails requesting that the landlord address her boiler at the earliest opportunity. She also requested details on how the landlord would seek to reimburse her for any additional electricity costs as a result of the immersion heater usage. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did attempt to call the resident, however this was unsuccessful.

On 9 March 2020 the resident reported that the immersion heater had stopped working. According to the landlord’s records, this was repaired on 10 March 2020. Following the engineer’s departure however, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the immersion heater was not heating up sufficiently. She requested a different engineer to address this and said that she wished to submit a complaint about the incompetence of the first engineer. She asserted that he had deliberately stopped the tank from working.

Later, on 10 March 2020, a second engineer attended the resident’s property. The landlord’s records show that the immersion heater was left in working order, however following the engineer’s departure, the resident contacted the landlord again to advise that the heater was not working properly. She requested an urgent call and for the engineer to return as soon as possible.

Following a third visit to the resident’s property and a later conversation with the landlord’s contractors, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that she needed to allow more than 1 hour for the whole tank to heat up. The immersion tank was not broken but rather needed more time.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had emailed this information rather than calling her back to explain this. She stated that the landlord was wrong and that, prior to the engineer breaking the immersion tank, it had heated up ¾ of the tank in an hour. She stated that she had now left the heater on for 4 hours and only a ¼ of the tank had been heated.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had sent the same engineer who, she asserted, had previously been unable to fix the problem. She stated that he had confirmed, however, that the tank should not take over an hour to heat up. She requested that a supervisor attend her property to investigate the matter. She still sought confirmation on when her boiler would be fixed and that she would be given a refund for her electricity charges in the interim.

On 19 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she wished to make a further complaint. She said:
1. She still had not been given an appointment date for her boiler installation. She had been advised that this would be completed within a maximum of 10 days.
2. The landlord had not responded to her email to confirm that she would receive a cheque for her electricity bill. She did not want this amount to be credited to her rent account. She requested a cheque.
3. She had not had hot water or heating from her boiler for 10 days due to the boiler being shut off. She did have an immersion heater, however this had stopped working on several occasions.

The resident was informed on 20 March 2020 that an appointment had been scheduled for 23 March 2020 to install her new boiler.

On the same day (20 March 2020), in the early hours of the morning, the resident reported that the immersion heater had stopped working again. She highlighted that this was the third time she had reported this. She added that she had complained about the previous engineer however this had not been acknowledged and no complaint reference had been given.

The resident sent a further two emails requesting that someone call her urgently to schedule a repair of the immersion heater. She stated that scaffolding also needed to be erected if works were to be undertaken on her boiler. She wished to know when this would be done.

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s engineer attended the resident’s property in the evening of 20 March 2020 to address the immersion heater.

On 21 March 2020 the resident requested that the landlord add to her stage one complaint that:
1. The immersion heater had broken down for a third time and it was not repaired until the evening.
2. Scaffolding was supposed to be erected however had not been. She was therefore sceptical that the boiler would be installed as arranged.

On 23 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and requested a visit from its contractor as she wished to discuss a number of issues she had found with her new boiler, following its installation earlier in the day. She reported:
1. The hot bath tap had hardly any water coming out since the boiler had been installed.
2. The radiator in one bedroom had stopped working since the installation. This had been reported to the engineer and he had suggested that it needed a new valve.
3. She had been informed that two radiator valves would be installed on another radiator. She now needed three.
4. The engineer had damaged her bannister, chipping a large chunk out of it. This was raised on the day and Polyfilla used to fill the hole. She had been advised however that someone else would paint over this. She requested to know when this would happen.
5. The panel box under the boiler was not large enough to cover the pipes. The engineer stated that a larger box would be created. She queried when this was due to happen.
6. The engineer had been at her property for 12 hours and was unable to finish the job. She wished to know when someone would be returning to fix the problems. She asserted that two engineers should have been sent as one man was not enough for the job.
7. She was not shown how to use the new boiler, she had to ask the engineer. He had also failed to clean up after himself. She noted that a black mark had been left on her bath.
8. She requested that her comments be added to her previous complaint about her boiler.

The Ombudsman notes that the resident sent the landlord several emails on 24 March 2020 reiterating the points raised above. She added:
1. There was still scaffolding outside her kitchen window. She questioned when this would be removed.
2. She had been informed that a supervisor would visit her property to ensure that the installation had been successful, however this had not happened.
3. Compensation should have been paid as the boiler replacement took three weeks.
4. She had repeatedly requested details on how she could obtain a refund on her electricity charges.

The resident followed this up with two further emails in which she explained that she had contacted the boiler manufacturer and been informed that a 15mm pipe or restrictor should have been installed along with her new boiler.

Later, on the same day (24 March 2020), the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that it had raised a job with its contractors who would:
1. Replace the radiator valves
2. Investigate why the hot water had turned cold
3. Investigate why only a small amount of water was coming out of the bath tap.

The landlord informed the resident that the job had been scheduled for 6 April 2020. It stated that the resident could use the immersion heater to reliably access hot water while these problems persisted. In relation to the box panel, the landlord stated it would discuss this with its contractor as this was not a standard job, and it would provide an update. A stage 0 (initial contact resolution) complaint had also been raised with the contractor in relation to:
1. The bannister damage
2. The request to paint over the filler
3. The time taken to complete the job
4. Lack of a second engineer
5. Dirt on the floor and a mark on the bath.

The resident responded stating:
1. An appointment sooner than 6 April 2020 was required.
2. She no longer had an immersion tank. This was taken by the engineer when he installed the combination boiler.
3. She had requested a refund for the electricity charge on many occasions but still had not received it. She stated that she had been told that she would be paid £8 a day during the time she was without a boiler, this was £144 to account for 18 days.
4. She had not been informed when she would receive a response to her complaint about the fact that the boiler installation took three weeks. She stated that her boiler had been turned off on 6 March 2020 and she had been told that it would take a maximum of 10 days.
5. A plumber needed to be sent to address the issues with her taps.
6. She wished to know when the scaffolding would be removed from outside her window.

The resident sent two further emails providing videos and pictures, and a third in the early hours of 25 March 2020.

On 25 March 2020 following a phone call with the resident, the landlord summarised that:
1. It was organising payment for the resident’s electricity bill
2. It had provisionally booked a supervisor to attend the resident’s property on 31 March 2020 to investigate the issues regarding the low water pressure and advise on the pipework further. They would also discuss the pipe box panel and the removal of the scaffolding. The supervisor would also arrange for the three radiator valves to be installed.

In a further email on the same day, the landlord confirmed that the bannister would also be painted. The landlord advised that a scaffolder would attend separately to collect the scaffolding but there was not a set time.

Several emails were sent by the resident between 26 and 29 March 2020 in which the same concerns were raised.

On 30 March 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that, due to staffing challenges, caused by the Coronavirus measures imposed, its contractor had reduced its services to essential works only. It stated that as the resident had heating and hot water, her situation had not been viewed as essential. Her appointment had subsequently been postponed.

On 31 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she wished to raise a stage one complaint. She stated that she intended to seek legal advice as she believed the council had broken the tenancy agreement in the following ways:
1. That the boiler repair had been delayed
2. On the day of installation, the engineer took 12 hours to install the boiler. She asserted that the water had been turned off during this time and she was unable to drink or flush the toilet.
3. The landlord had refused to repair the damage in her property caused by the installation of the new boiler.
4. The engineer who had installed her new boiler had left dirt and rubbish all over her property.
5. The landlord had not installed the boiler correctly. She provided video footage and stated that not only was little water coming out of the hot bath tap, no water would come out of the sink tap when the bath tap was running.
6. She had contacted the manufacturer of the boiler who informed that the problems were caused by the installation and inappropriate pipe lengths.
7. The radiator valves and the box panel for the pipes were still outstanding.
8. While she was made to sign a form suggesting that the engineer showed her how to use the new boiler, she was unable to change the temperature.
9. The scaffolding that was installed outside her kitchen window on 21 March to enable the installation of the boiler still had not been removed.
10. She had received a large electricity bill but no support in obtaining a refund.
11. An appointment had been scheduled for 31 March 2020 to fix the installation problem however this had just been cancelled, with 12 hours’ notice.

On 31 March 2020 the resident requested that the landlord call her to inform her when someone would attend to fix her faulty boiler. She threatened court action if the landlord did not fix her boiler within 14 days

In further correspondence from the resident, she queried, as the landlord was only dealing with emergencies until the foreseeable future, whether the landlord would pay for her to hire a private engineer. She stated that if the landlord refused, and it was not fixed within 14 days, she would be taking court action.

The landlord contacted the resident on the same day noting that she had made contact with its contractors. It highlighted that the resident had adequate heating and hot water, and its contractor would not be attending during this time. The landlord confirmed it would not cover the cost of any private works organised.

The resident explained to the landlord that its contractors had considered it “normal” for there to be little water from the hot sink tap when the bath tap was running. She stated that the contractor had subsequently refused to fix her faulty boiler. She had therefore obtained a quote from the manufacturer for an engineer to assess her boiler. The resident followed this up with further correspondence on 1 April 2020 requesting an independent inspection of her boiler installation.

On 2 April 2020 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident explaining that the resident’s reports were being dealt with as a disrepair claim. The Solicitor advised the resident that under the pre-action protocol, it had 20 days to respond.

On 3 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord reiterating many of the points she had raised on 31 March 2020. She provided photos of the dirt and damage which she asserted had been left behind by the boiler engineer and videos showing the maximum volume of water from the sink tap while the hot bath tap was running. She asserted:
1. She had been informed by the boiler engineer that it was “normal” to have hardly any hot water coming out of the sink tap while the hot bath tap was running and for the water to be cloudy. She stated she had not had these problems with her old boiler. When she had discussed the type of boiler she wanted with the landlord, she was not informed of the problems that this would produce. She had contacted the manufacturer and it suggested inspecting the boiler to confirm that it had been installed correctly. She requested that this be done.
2. The landlord needed to remove the combination boiler and replace it with the conventional boiler she previously had, if the problems could not be fixed. Along with this, it should reinstall the previous electric immersion tank and shower pump.
3. The landlord needed to address the damage she had outlined to her bannister, bathroom door, bath, kitchen table, radiator valve, shower curtain and shower net. It also needed to carry out the outstanding works.
4. Financial compensation was needed for the three-week delay in completing the boiler works.

On 3 April 2020 the landlord responded. The landlord advised:
1. All non-essential tasks, including decorating, had been suspended and would not be completed until such time as the Coronavirus pandemic had passed and government restrictions had been lifted.
2. The resident’s concerns with the installation of the boiler had been noted and a visit by the manufacturer’s engineer had been scheduled for 8 April 2020. A thorough inspection would be conducted of any ongoing issues. The landlord explained that it had also contacted its contractor and a supervisor would also be in attendance as well as a consultant.
3. Arrangements had been made to make a payment of £144 to account for the additional electrical costs.

On 4 April 2020 the resident wrote to her SPOC. She advised that, given government guidelines, she did not consider it appropriate to have three people in her home, all attempting to keep 2 metres apart. She therefore requested that those not undertaking the inspection wait outside. The resident requested the details and credentials of all attendees.

The landlord visited the resident’s property on 6 April 2020 (as it had forgotten to cancel the inspection which had been arranged on 24 March 2020) and undertook an inspection of the resident’s boiler. It noted no issues with the installation.

The Ombudsman can see from the landlord’s internal emails that following the further inspection on 8 April 2020, the landlord’s consultant wrote to the landlord. It confirmed that during the inspection, the manufacturer’s engineer reported:
1. The boiler had been fitted correctly and to the manufacturer’s instructions.
2. The boiler had been sited in the correct place.
3. The hot water had been working correctly and the flow rate test confirmed that it was correct for the boiler installation.
4. The pressure was found to be correct following a test.
5. All settings were correct.
6. The pipe sizes were correct.
7. The resident had been informed that the remaining remedial work would be completed after the current pandemic had passed.

On 17 April 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated:
1. Someone would attend the resident’s property to complete outstanding remedial works once normal services resumed. At this time, it would confirm the specific works it would take responsibility for.
2. In relation to the assertion that a visit had not taken place to ensure successful installation of the boiler, its supervisor confirmed that he attended on 23 March 2020. He confirmed that he had attended on the following day to sign off the installation and was in attendance on 8 April 2020.

On 18 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and said that within the landlord’s correspondence, it had suggested that a supervisor had inspected the boiler on the day of installation and the day after. The resident said this was untrue. The supervisor had visited for five minutes on the day of installation but not returned on the following day. She therefore wished to raise a stage one complaint in relation to this. In a further email, the resident asserted that the supervisor must have forged an inspection certificate which, she noted, was a criminal offence.

On 24 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord’s Solicitor. She explained that her Letter Before Action was sent on 31 March 2020 and the Solicitor was provided with 14 days to reply. This should have been responded to by 14 April 2020. She said that if she did not receive a reply by 8 May 2020, she would begin court proceedings.

With no response, the resident contacted the landlord again on 28 April 2020 asking it to confirm receipt and that it would respond by the given deadline.

On 29 April 2020 the Solicitor responded. He stated that as per the pre-action protocol, he had 20 working days to reply following receipt. Taking into account the bank holidays, this gave him until the end of the day. He explained however, that more time was needed as a result of the many emails the resident had sent. A response would therefore be provided by 8 May 2020 as requested by the resident.

On 7 May 2020 the landlord’s Solicitor stated that while the response had been completed, it was not in a position to obtain instructions from the landlord. It therefore sought a further extension to 11 May 2020 (to account for the bank holiday).

On 11 May 2020 the landlord’s Solicitor wrote to the resident in response to her correspondence of 31 March 2020. The Solicitor explained that it would only address matters of disrepair under this protocol and so any other matters raised in the resident’s letter and subsequent emails needed to be addressed by pursuing a complaint against the landlord. The Solicitor stated that it was aware that the resident had already begun the complaint process. The Solicitor noted:
1. The breakdown report for the old boiler was received on 12 March 2020. Replacement was approved on 15 March 2020 and installation was completed on 23 March 2020. It was acknowledged that there was a delay in fitting the new appliance and so the resident was compensated £144 to cover the additional expense for running temporary heating and hot water from 6 – 23 March 2020.
2. The Solicitor requested to know which days the resident was without heating and hot water, and a copy of the resident’s electricity bills (for the same period in 2019 and 2020 to see if she paid more), in order to calculate whether more compensation was owed. The Solicitor explained that as the landlord had already offered an amount to cover a longer period than she would be entitled to (from 6 March 2020), without further evidence of expenditure, it considered that the resident had been adequately compensated.
3. That the resident had requested that a new combination boiler be fitted. It was explained that there would be a reduction with the waterflow to one tap if another was opened under the combination boiler system. This was perfectly normal and did not constitute disrepair.
4. The landlord accepted that the bannister had inadvertently been damaged during the installation, however did not accept that other items, including damage to the door, table and flooring, were caused by the engineer. The job supervisor who visited the property confirmed that all work surfaces and floors were covered by the engineer with dust sheets. It was also not accepted that staining to the shower curtains was caused by the engineer.
5. The boiler supervisor attended the installation on 23 March 2020 and also attended the next day to sign off the installation as correct and complete. He was also present at the property when the manufacturer’s engineer attended on 8 April 2020 and both confirmed that it had been installed correctly. The Solicitor noted that a visit was also undertaken on 6 April 2020.
6. During the visit on 8 April 2020, it was confirmed that the boiler had been fitted to the manufacturer’s instructions and was fit for purpose. It was sited correctly in the kitchen as is the case with most combination boilers and there was no requirement for it to be fitted close to the bathroom. The hot water was working correctly and the flow rate test confirmed that it was correct for the boiler installation. A pressure test was also carried out which was correct as was the boiler heating setting. The engineer confirmed that all pipes were the correct size. The Solicitor noted that there were some remedial works required including decoration and boxing beneath the boiler and explained this would be done once the COVID-19 restrictions had passed.
7. The Solicitor therefore concluded that the delays in the resident’s boiler installation had been recognised and the resident adequately compensated. It was satisfied that the boiler had been installed appropriately and noted that there was still some making good to do however did not believe that the resident had been inconvenienced by this. The solicitor noted that the scaffolding had now been removed. The resident was directed to the landlord’s website to take note of the repairs the landlord would and would not be completing during the period of the COVID-19 restrictions.

With this, the landlord provided a complaint response on 22 May 2020. It restated the points above, adding that the £144 for electricity was agreed on 6 April and processed to the resident’s account a few days later.

In response, on the same day, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two. She reiterated the same points raised in her earlier complaint and highlighted that the supervisor had never attended her property to inspect the boiler. She stated that he had lied and forged an inspection certificate, and this had not been addressed.

On 26 May 2020 the Solicitor wrote to the resident to establish whether she still wished to pursue her claim or to address matters under the complaints process. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was responded to.

On 1 June 2020 after speaking with her councillor, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated she had been informed that the landlord was still undertaking repairs, contrary to what she had been told. She requested to know when the repairs at her property would take place. The landlord explained that it was still operating an intermittent service.

Following a further email regarding these repairs from the resident on 17 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised that it was unable to provide specific timeframes for non-essential works. The landlord explained:
1. The resident had been advised on several occasions that the small repair works at her property were considered non-essential and would be considered when the pandemic ended.
2. It had responded to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the delay in providing an appointment. It would not be responding further to this.

On 18 June 2020 the resident reiterated that her complaints regarding the boiler and the alleged presence of the supervisor were still outstanding.

On 3 July 2020 the Gas Safety Register (GSR) wrote to the landlord’s contractors following an inspection of the new boiler installation, undertaken on 30 June 2020. GSR noted that concerns had been raised by the resident about the safety of the new boiler installation however reported no issues with the pipework/appliances and no gas safe related defects.

On 13 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She questioned when the damage in her property would be addressed. She asserted that she had not received an official reply to her stage one complaint about her boiler installation.

On 15 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one. It acknowledged that there were still outstanding works, but that due to the COVID-19 pandemic some resources had been redeployed to high priority areas. This caused delays in other areas. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and advised that it would update her once it was able to revisit the property to confirm works.

On 16 July 2020 the resident submitted a stage two complaint. She stated that the stage one response was inadequate and did not answer several parts of her complaint. She detailed her earlier concerns and added that the stage one complaint was made in March however it had taken four months for the landlord to reply.

On 31 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated that she had received correspondence from the landlord that the government had confirmed the ease of lockdown restrictions as of 10 May 2020. As part of this, landlords had been granted permission to access properties to undertake routine and essential work. She questioned whether works would therefore commence at her property.

On 4 August 2020 the Solicitor wrote to the resident and explained that as it had not heard from her in relation to her disrepair claim, it would be closing the claim.

On 5 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that she had not received a response to her correspondence on 31 July 2020. She asserted that the landlord had used the virus as an excuse for not carrying out these repairs or replying to her complaint. She threatened legal action if the landlord did not respond before 20 August 2020.

On 10 August 2020 the landlord provided its final response (dated 7 August 2020). It restated the points raised on 11 May and 22 May 2020, noting:
1. The boiler installation took place on the agreed day and the resident had access to an immersion heater during the interim period which provided heating and hot water.
2. Where the resident reported issues with the immersion heater, she was given appointments in which engineers attended and fixed the issue. The landlord stated it could see no evidence that any of the jobs were refused or delayed.
3. The request for reimbursement of the electricity costs was passed to the relevant department on 23 March 2020 following the installation of the new boiler and the resident was advised of this on 25 March 2020. Due to the resident’s request that this be paid by cheque, and with the national lockdown, this process took longer than usual. The landlord apologised for this.
4. Its supervisor who attended the resident’s property confirmed that the floors were covered with dust sheets. It was also confirmed that the resident had been advised of the limitations of a combination boiler.
5. It had already responded to the resident’s concerns with the supervisor’s visit and so would not comment further.
6. Its contractors had still not resumed its services fully but were gradually attending more routine jobs. The issues had been raised with the Housing Team and it was working to provide an estimated repair date.
7. The attending engineer was fully qualified to install the boiler on his own and advised that the utilities were not switched off for 12 hours.

The Ombudsman notes that works were undertaken at the resident’s property on 24 September 2020.

The Ombudsman has also seen correspondence sent to the landlord on 13 November 2020 from the boiler manufacturer. Within this, the manufacturer confirmed that its engineer had visited the resident’s property on 8 April 2020 to investigate the boiler. It found no issues with the boiler nor the installation. It is noted that the operation of the boiler was to the manufacturers’ specifications and it was explained that the heating would stop when the hot water was in use.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s faulty boiler.

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement, the landlord should undertake repairs which it is responsible for within a reasonable amount of time. In addition, the landlord’s repair policy indicates that in urgent cases, repairs should be undertaken within 24 hours of being reported.

The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord met its repair obligations following the resident’s reports that her immersion heater had stopped working and has concluded that the landlord acted appropriately. While the Ombudsman recognises that the resident was dissatisfied with the speed with which the heater was working, the Ombudsman is satisfied that three engineers attended the resident’s property confirming no defects before leaving. The landlord ensured that on each occasion, an operative was sent out within 24 hours and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, responded to the resident’s correspondence within good time. Later, the resident did suggest in her complaints that she had been left without hot water and heating during the time that the boiler replacement remained outstanding. The Ombudsman is content, however, that the immersion heater was in working order during this period. The Ombudsman also notes that in the landlord’s Solicitor’s correspondence on 11 May 2020, the Solicitor requested details of the dates in which the resident was without heating and hot water (as well as her electricity bill) in order to calculate whether more compensation was owed. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was provided.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a faulty boiler and the repair timeline. In the Ombudsman’s view, there was a slight delay between the resident’s initial report and the completion of the boiler works. This is because the resident reported having problems with her boiler on 6 March 2020 however an appointment was not provided for the replacement until 20 March 2020, and not completed until 23 March 2020. The Ombudsman recognises that it may have taken some time to obtain the new boiler before installation, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have kept the resident better updated on the cause of the delay. The resident requested details on when the landlord planned to address her boiler on many occasions, however the Ombudsman cannot see that she was appropriately responded to until 20 March 2020. This was unreasonable. The Ombudsman is satisfied however, that during this time the resident was not left without hot water or heating. Moreover, the landlord fairly recognised the costs accrued by the resident as a result of its delay. The resident was reimbursed £144 to account for the additional electricity used during this time which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was fair.

On 23 March 2020 the resident reported several issues with her new boiler and radiator. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord acknowledged this and responded on the following day. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord attempted to resolve the resident’s concerns through initial contact resolution as per its complaints policy, and agreed that it would investigate the issues with the new boiler, replace the valves on the radiator and arrange a visit with its contractor to address the outstanding issues. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman can also see that on 25 March 2020, the resident was advised that a supervisor would attend her property on 31 March 2020 to investigate the issues raised. This was appropriate.

The Ombudsman notes that these appointments were cancelled as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak and government guidelines. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it had reduced its services to emergency and urgent repairs only, which was in line with government guidance at the time. It was also appropriate for the landlord to refuse to cover the cost of any private inspections that the resident sought to arrange during this time as it made clear it still intended to undertake the inspection where possible.

On 3 April 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she had spoken with the manufacturer of her boiler and it had been suggested that the boiler may not have been installed appropriately. The resident therefore requested an inspection. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord confirmed with the resident on the same day that she would be visited by the manufacturer’s engineer on 8 April 2020, and in relation to the outstanding works, reminded the resident of its position on all non-essential tasks. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was an appropriate and fair response.

In questioning the boiler installation, the Ombudsman notes that on 3 April 2020 the resident was informed by the landlord’s contracted engineers that the issues she had reported were “normal”. Later, on 6 April 2020, an unarranged inspection of the resident’s boiler was undertaken which also found no issues with the boiler. Finally, on 8 April 2020, it was confirmed by the manufacturer’s engineer that there were no faults with the boiler and that it had been fitted in line with the manufacturer’s instructions. This was confirmed by the landlord’s consultant and also in writing by the manufacturer’s engineer in November 2020. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that several inspections were undertaken of the boiler, and advice had been provided, which confirmed that the boiler was fully functioning and in working order.

The Ombudsman is unable to confirm the landlord’s assertion that the resident was adequately advised on the functions and capabilities of the combination boiler as the landlord has provided no proof of this. It is apparent to the Ombudsman, however, that this type of boiler was installed for the resident upon her request. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that, while the resident requested that the landlord change the boiler if the problems she had raised could not be altered, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was not obligated to do so (or to reinstall the immersion tank and water pump). The landlord satisfied itself that the boiler was working adequately (to the manufacturer’s standard), and while it did not operate in the same way as the resident’s previous boiler, it still supplied hot water and heating as required.

On 24 March 2020 the resident explained that she had been told that a supervisor would attend her property to ensure that the boiler installation had been successful, however this had not happened. This was challenged by the landlord on 17 April 2020 however the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided any evidence to support its assertion that an inspection was undertaken. The Ombudsman can see that a boiler test certificate was signed, however this was by a different member of staff. In any case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s supervisor was present during the inspection on 8 April 2020 and that an inspection had been undertaken prior to this too. The Ombudsman has not seen that any documents were forged by this member of staff.

The resident suggested that during the time her boiler was being repaired (12 hours), her water had been shut off. The Ombudsman notes, however, that within the landlord’s internal emails, and in the landlord’s responses, it was explained that the water had only been shut off for a short period of time and not 12 hours. The Ombudsman cannot reasonably comment on whether this did or did not occur as there is insufficient evidence available. The Ombudsman is satisfied however that the landlord offered a reasonable explanation to the resident. The Ombudsman has also found no issue with its decision to send one engineer rather than two. It is for the landlord to decide how it wishes to deploy its staff.

The Ombudsman has acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the time taken to process the electricity refund. This was raised as early as 6 March 2020 and in several emails following this. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have responded to this in good time and provided the resident with details on the process for reimbursement. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident would not have been able to begin the process until the works were completed on 23 March 2020. There was therefore no detriment to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay in responding. The Ombudsman can see that on 25 March 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had spoken with the resident on the phone and discussed that payment was being organised. Later, on 3 April 2020, the landlord confirmed that arrangements had been made to pay £144 to the resident. The Ombudsman has not considered this timeframe to be unreasonable and is satisfied that the landlord apologised for the delay.

The Ombudsman considers that the scaffolding was erected and taken down within a reasonable amount of time. Following the completion of the works on 23 March 2020, and the resident’s query on 24 March 2020 seeking to establish when this would be removed, the landlord informed the resident on 25 March 2020 that a scaffolder would attend to collect the scaffolding. This was reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage and, whilst the landlord did advise the resident of its intention to undertake most of the works requested, the Ombudsman notes that there was a delay.

On 23 March 2020 the resident reported damage to her property following the installation of her new boiler. The Ombudsman can see that this was recognised by the landlord on 24 March 2020 and the resident was informed that a job had been raised for the landlord’s contractor to attend the resident’s property on 6 April 2020. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes that works had also been planned for 31 March 2020.

The Ombudsman appreciates that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord reduced its services and cancelled all non-urgent repairs, including those scheduled to take place at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman also appreciates that within several of the landlord’s responses (e.g. 11 May, 22 May, 1 June 2020) it confirmed to the resident that it would undertake the previously agreed works once its services had returned to normality. On 17 June 2020 it apologised that it was unable to provide a more specific timeframe. This was appropriate.

The Ombudsman notes, however, that on 30 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it had been granted permission to resume undertaking routine and essential works. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to take steps to organise and address the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman accepts that in the landlord’s final response on 10 August 2020, it explained that its Housing Team was working to provide an estimated repair date. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to offer an explanation on how it was prioritising repairs to manage the resident’s expectations.

Due to the nature of the circumstance (a pandemic) and the likelihood that the landlord would have been faced with a backlog of repairs following its return to routine services, the Ombudsman has not considered this to be a service failure. The Ombudsman notes that the repairs were undertaken on 24 September 2020 and is satisfied that an excessive amount of time had not elapsed since it proposed to arrange works, on 10 August 2020.

The Ombudsman notes that within the Solicitor’s disrepair response, he informed the resident that the landlord would not take responsibility for some of the damage reported (the floor, kitchen table, door and shower curtain). The resident was advised that she could, if she disagreed, respond within the terms of the pre-action protocol which the Solicitor would consider. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Solicitor later sought to establish whether the resident still wished to pursue this matter, however received no response. It was therefore appropriate for this to be closed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman recognises that due to the frequency of emails sent by the resident, there may have been some difficulty in comprehensively addressing all of the resident’s concerns. Still, the Ombudsman is concerned about several aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a complaint on 10 March 2020 as she believed that the landlord’s engineer purposefully damaged her immersion heater. As per the landlord’s complaints process, this should have been acknowledged and responded to within 15 working days however the Ombudsman cannot see that this was done. While the landlord was able to confirm for itself that the immersion heater was in working order (as a further engineer had attended), it would have been appropriate to also address the resident’s dissatisfaction under the complaints process. The landlord’s failure to do so was contrary to its policy.

Similarly, on 19 March 2020 the resident raised a complaint about the handling of her boiler repair, including the length of time that had passed before being given an appointment, the lack of confirmation on whether she would be reimbursed for her electricity, and that her immersion heater had stopped working on several occasions. This too should have been acknowledged and responded to within 15 working days as set out in the landlord’s policy, however this was not done.

Between 19 March and 31 March 2020, the resident sent several emails adding to her complaint. These issues were brought together under a stage one complaint on 31 March 2020 and reiterated on 3 April 2020. Following receipt of this, the landlord should have provided the resident with a formal stage one response within the prescribed timeframe. The Ombudsman notes, however, that a complaint response was not issued until 22 May 2020. In the Ombudsman’s view, this delay was inappropriate. The landlord failed to uphold the response timescale and to advise the resident on the reasons for its delay. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did, under its disrepair claim process, address the resident’s concerns in its earlier correspondence on 11 May 2020. Still, this was issued over a month after the resident had submitted her complaint and clearly distinguished itself from the complaint response. The landlord should have provided the resident with a complaint response at the earliest opportunity, feeding back the findings following the inspection on 8 April 2020 and its position on the issues raised.

On 18 April 2020 the resident requested that the landlord register a stage one complaint in relation to the supervisor’s alleged visit to her property. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord responded to this within its correspondence on 22 May 2020, however as noted above, this was delayed and contrary to the landlord’s process.

Following the landlord’s response on 22 May 2020, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. This, again, should have been confirmed and responded to within 15 working days. Instead, the Ombudsman can see that following further prompts from the resident, and a request for a response to her boiler complaint, on 15 July 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a further stage one response. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was inappropriate. This delayed the resident in obtaining the landlord’s final decision which, in turn, delayed the resident in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation.

While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident a sufficient response to her concerns on several occasions, it was clear that the resident was unclear on the landlord’s position. Subsequently, the resident continuously chased a complaint response and expressed dissatisfaction on 16 July 2020 with the length of time taken to respond under the complaint process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this lack of clarity was the result of the landlord’s failure to provide clear, formal complaint responses to allow the resident to exhaust its process. In the Ombudsman’s view, this would have prevented miscommunications, the continuous back and forth emails, and enabled the resident to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman Service at an earlier time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and immersion heater.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage.
3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The landlord handled the resident’s faulty boiler repair in line with its obligations. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident was not left without hot water or heating for more than 24 hours, in line with the landlord’s urgent repair process, and that the landlord offered a prompt response where reports regarding the immersion heater were made. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was a delay in scheduling the boiler installation, however this was satisfactorily recognised, and reimbursement was offered for the resident’s costs. The landlord’s Solicitor also agreed to consider any further costs which the resident may have accrued. Furthermore, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns following the installation of her new boiler. The landlord appropriately obtained expert opinion, following the resident’s request, to verify that the boiler was operating and installed as expected by the manufacturer and this was appropriate.
2. While there was a slight delay in undertaking the outstanding repairs, the Ombudsman appreciates that this was caused by unforeseen circumstances and a subsequent reduction in the landlord’s services. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident advising her of the way in which repairs were being prioritised, and potentially an anticipated date for repair, however the Ombudsman notes that the repairs were undertaken within a reasonable amount of time given the circumstance.
3. The landlord failed to adequately handle the resident’s complaints and to act in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to many of the resident’s complaints and to uphold the timeframes prescribed at each stage of the complaints process. Furthermore, the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in good time and in turn, to provide a stage two response when appropriate. Instead the landlord offered a further, delayed, stage one response in July 2020, deferring its final response until August 2020. This subsequently meant that the resident was unable to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation until after this time. The landlord failed to recognise its poor complaint handling and to offer an apology for the delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150. This is to account for the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its complaint handling procedure (particularly the timeframes); its failure to recognise/acknowledge many of the resident’s complaints; its failure to recognise its poor complaint handling within the final response, and the subsequent delay in allowing the resident to exhaust the complaints process.
The landlord should ensure that the above payment is made within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that all future complaints are dealt with in line with its complaints policy to allow residents to achieve resolution within a reasonable amount of time.

In light of the current government restrictions and the uncertainty which surrounds the Coronavirus pandemic, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord may need to reconsider how and where it offers its services. The landlord should still, nonetheless, seek to undertake all repairs which it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time. If the landlord intends to reduce or indeed parts of its repair service (e.g. non-routine repairs), it should ensure that its message is consistent, and that residents are clear on what they can expect.