London Borough of Hackney (202000798)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000798

Hackney Council

29 April 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 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 resident complains about how the landlord handled reports of problems with the heating and hot water in the property and the level of compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the property.
The landlord’s records evidence that on 28 May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord requesting to speak to a manager about the heating system in the property. She said the issue had been ongoing for over a year and it was unresolved. The landlord noted that there were two job tickets on the repairs history and that the job was still with the contractors.
However, other than this record, the landlord has not been able to provide comprehensive repair records relevant to the complaint. Due to an IT issue, it has not been able to access repairs from prior to October 2020. The summary below is based on the available complaint correspondence and the landlord’s internal complaint records.
On 2 January 2020, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that:
1. There had been an issue with the heating and hot water for over a year.
2. Her mother and daughter were both disabled which meant the repair issues made their life very difficult.
3. The repairs team attended the property over five times but could not resolve the issue so referred it to contractors. The contractors attended several times and bled out the boiler and increased the pressure so that the heating and hot water would work. However, after two or three months, the heating and hot water went back off again. The contractors returned the first week of December 2019 and said that a new unit was needed. The wrong unit was ordered. The contractors said they would order a new one, but she had not yet heard back. The heating costs for the past two months had doubled as the contractors put the heating and hot water on automatic which means they had no control. The ground floor was cold and the top floor was overheated.
4. On many occasions, there was no hot water to wash or clean her daughter when she was ill in the middle of the night. She has had to reset the boiler many times. She had chased up a manager call back and the contractors.
A new boiler was fitted on or around 14 January 2020. The contractors planned to attend the property on 31 January 2020 in relation to new issues raised after the fitting of the new boiler. On 4 February 2020, the resident informed the landlord that no one had attended the property on 31 January 2020. The landlord contacted the contractor to rearrange the visit. As at 24 February 2020, the landlord was still chasing the contractors for a report.
When providing a response to the resident’s complaint on 4 March 2020, the landlord acknowledged that there had been numerous breakdowns of the unit supplying heating and hot water. The landlord said that each time it was reported defective, an operative attended, left the unit operational, but broke down a short while afterwards. It also said that some of the issues were due to the design of the unit which had now been addressed with the new unit.
The landlord said that it had not delayed in repairing the unit and had since replaced it. However, noting that it had been a repeated issue and heating is an “essential service”, it offered £50 compensation.
On 9 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she was not happy with the compensation offered as it was not adequate to address the lack of heating and hot water that she and her family had experienced for the past two years. On 10 March 2020, the resident requested escalation of the complaint stating that:
1. The issue with the heating and hot water had caused them distress for the last two years.
2. Her mother and daughter who live at the property are both disabled and require the heating and hot water all the time. She has had to heat water using the kettle to bathe her daughter which was very distressing given her daughter’s ill health.
3. She had to buy an electric heater, which also increased bills.
4. The contractors disconnected something from the boiler which meant that the boiler worked automatically and made the house very hot so the bills were double what she used to pay.
5. The hot water pressure was still “not good”.
On 2 April 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and requested she send in bills to show the difference in electricity costs. The resident provided the landlord with electricity bills from the period 1 August 2019 to 30 January 2020.
The landlord’s notes relating to the complaint state that it arranged for a contractor to attend the property on 6 April 2020 after the resident expressed concerns that day about a burning smell and scorch marks from the boiler. The landlord’s internal correspondence refers to the contractors attending and that they found the heating and hot water working “correctly”.
On 14 April 2020, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the boiler. It said it had arranged for contractors to return to the property to remedy any ongoing issues with the boiler. It also increased the compensation to £90 to acknowledge that the boiler was not in working order for nine weeks and apologise for the inconvenience caused (although it did not state the dates it was referring to). In relation to the utility costs, the landlord requested the resident provide bills to evidence that she had paid £300 in additional costs (evidence of the increased costs and evidence of the costs of the previous year as a comparison).
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there are still some issues with the heating and hot water in that the new system does not provide adequate hot water and heating for the needs of the resident and her family. She has also informed the Ombudsman that she was unable to obtain the historic electricity bills as a comparison as she had changed providers and the previous provider was not able to provide this.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

The terms of the tenancy agreement set out that the landlord is responsible for repairing the systems in the property for heating rooms and providing hot water and keeping those systems in proper working order.
The landlord’s Repairs Guide lists restoration of a full or partial failure of heating systems is an emergency repair with a response time of within 24 hours.
The landlord’s Compensation guidance refers to compensation for “avoidable distress” which is stated to be “often a sum of between £100 and £300”, but in cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified, and “exceptionally”, could be higher. It also states that it will take into account the complainant’s circumstances, noting that: “a disability or health condition may make a complainant less able to cope with the impact of the fault we have identified. If so, our recommendations for the remedy should be considered and potentially reflect this”.
The above policy also states that where the landlord has taken an unreasonable amount of time to complete repairs due to avoidable delay, it may be appropriate to pay compensation at a rate of £10 per week for the impact of delayed internal repairs. It also refers to cases where more serious issues are identified, for example, where there is a significant impact on the resident or there is substantial loss of amenity. It states that these cases need to be considered on their merits but may require higher level of compensation for distress, harm or time and trouble.
Where an investigation identifies that an appointment was missed by the landlord or its contractor and it was the landlord’s fault, a sum of £25 is payable.

Assessment

While the resident complained that issues with the hot water and heating had been ongoing for over a year prior to her complaint, the landlord did not specifically address this aspect of the complaint when responding to the resident. As set out above, the landlord has been unable to provide comprehensive repairs records from the time of the complaint and the years prior to this. This means that the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence as to when the resident reported problems with the boiler and what the landlord did in response. Without this evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to assess each instance of repairs and whether the landlord responded appropriately. Neither is there evidence to confirm how far back the issues began.
However, it is not disputed between the parties that the resident and her family were without hot water and heating for a period of nine weeks (although no dates are given). Without any evidence of the repairs attempted and completed by the landlord in this period, it is not possible to confirm the extent of the shortcomings by the landlord in this period. However, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in the boiler being repaired and that the boiler was not working for nine weeks. Given the response time of 24 hours set out in the landlord’s policy and the significant impact of not having hot water or heating, this was a shortcoming by the landlord.
The Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging that there was a delay in it repairing the boiler. It also apologised for the distress caused to the resident which was appropriate.
The landlord also offered £90 compensation relying on its Compensation policy. It is acknowledged that the Compensation policy refers to paying compensation at a rate of £10 per week for the impact of delayed internal repairs. However, it is also noted that in her complaint, the resident refers to the issues being reported in the months prior to December 2019, when the contractors identified a new boiler was needed. Not having hot water or heater during winter months would have had a considerable impact on the resident including distress and inconvenience. The resident also explained to the landlord that she has a disabled mother and daughter, and that the lack of hot water and heating caused significant distress to them due to their ill health. She specifically referred to not being able to bathe her daughter when she was unwell during the night and she has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord did not provide any temporary heating.
The Ombudsman’s own Remedies guidance refers to some suggested ranges of compensation, which include:
1. Awards of £50 to £250 – for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but where this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. For example, repeated failures to reply to letters or telephone calls.
2. Awards of £250 to £700 – where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. For example, failure to address repairs in accordance with its policy.
3. Awards of £700 and above – for instances of maladministration that have led to a several long-term impact on the resident. For example, a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
It is also noted that the landlord’s own compensation policy refers to payments for distress of between £100 and £300 and up to £1,000 where the distress was severe or prolonged. It also refers to taking into account disabilities of the resident which may impact the issue had on the resident.
In conclusion, the lack of available evidence has made it difficult for the Ombudsman to determine the precise timeline of events. However, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in repairing the boiler and that the resident was without heating and hot water for nine weeks. The resident’s complaint refers to the issues affecting her family over a number of months prior to the replacement of the boiler. The landlord did not dispute that the resident had reported multiple issues with the boiler and ultimately it had decided the most appropriate action was to replace it. In this situation, the Ombudsman is concerned that the level of compensation offered does not reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy recognises the urgency of such repairs stating they should be addressed within 24 hours, so it is clear there was a significant delay in this repair being addressed.
While it is acknowledged that ordering a new boiler might lead to some unavoidable delay, there is also no reference in the complaint correspondence to the landlord providing temporary heaters to the resident, which it should have done while the boiler was not working.
Overall, the level of compensation was not proportionate to the length of time the resident was without hot water and heating, and the impact of this on her family, particularly taking into account the disabilities described by the resident and the particular inconveniences she described, such as having to boil the kettle to bathe and incurring costs of temporary heating. The landlord applied its Compensation policy but failed to note that it could offer more than £10 a week when distress was caused to the resident and more than £300 when this was prolonged. The compensation offered by the landlord did not appropriately reflect the particular circumstances of this complaint. It is also noted that the landlord did not reference compensation for the missed appointment of 31 January 2020, for which it should have compensated £25 in accordance with its policy.
In relation to the extra electricity costs the resident said she had incurred due to the contractors leaving the boiler automatically switched on and the use of electric heaters while the boiler did not work, the landlord acted fairly in providing her with an opportunity to provide evidence of this. While the resident has explained why she was unable to obtain comparison bills for the previous year, it was reasonable for the landlord to require this before agreeing to reimburse any excess costs. However, it is noted that a further year has passed since the date of the bills previously provided by the resident, so the Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a further opportunity to provide bills from the winter of 2020/2021 as a comparator to those she provided from 2019/2020.
In relation to issues with the new boiler after its installation in January 2020, there is evidence that the landlord requested contractors attend to check the new boiler in January 2020, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence to confirm that the contractors attended. When the resident escalated the complaint, she referred to ongoing issues with the hot water pressure and in a conversation with the landlord in early April 2020, she raised concerns about a burning smell and scorch marks. The landlord appropriately arranged for contractors to check the boiler that day and there is no evidence that faults were found. The landlord therefore appropriately addressed this issue, although with a possible delay in February 2020.
However, the resident has reported that there remain issues with the new hot water and heating system as it does not provide adequate hot water and heating for the needs of the resident and her family. Given that she raised concerns about the pressure and supply during the complaints process, and the landlord did not specifically address this issue when responding to the complaint, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation that the landlord consider this issue further if the resident confirms it is still outstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled reports of problems with the heating and hot water in the property and the level of compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging and apologising for a delay in repairing the boiler. It also acted fairly in providing the resident with an opportunity to provide evidence of any excess utility costs she had incurred. However, the compensation the landlord offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairs to the boiler was not proportionate to the length of time the resident and her family were without hot water and heating, and the particular distress and inconvenience caused.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused (inclusive of the £90 offered previously and within four weeks of the date of this Order).
The landlord to remind its complaint handling staff of the discretion set out in its compensation policy to offer more than £10 per week compensation where appropriate (within six weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

The landlord to check with the resident as to whether she still has concerns about the water pressure or hot water supply in the property and give her an opportunity to explain her concerns about this. If appropriate, the landlord to arrange an inspection to check whether there are any further repairs for which it is responsible (within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation).
The landlord to provide the resident with an opportunity to provide some electricity bills from the comparable period from the winter of 2020/2021 to compare to those she provided previously. If she does so, the landlord should consider the two sets of bills and confirm in writing if it is willing to reimburse any evident excess electricity costs. (Within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation.)
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.