London Borough of Hackney (202231148)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231148

Hackney Council

15 February 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and hot water due to a faulty boiler.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat. A gas boiler supplies the resident with heating and hot water.
  2. The resident first reported he had no heating or hot water to the landlord on 24 February 2023. The landlord attended on 2 March 2023. The landlord needed parts which it had to order. The landlord booked an appointment with the resident to fit the parts on 28 March 2023. The landlord later brought forward the appointment to 17 March 2023, when it fixed the heating and hot water. The resident had been without this provision for 21 days (15 working days).
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to complain about the length of time the repair was taking on 5 March 2023, 4 days later the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 and in its final resolution the landlord offered him £60. This was £40 compensation for the delay to resolving the repair and £20 reimbursement for evidenced costs of the increased energy usage from the resident using his electric heater.
  4. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. As a resolution the resident would like an increased offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
  2. put things right, and
  3. learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) holds the landlord responsible for keeping the structure and installations of the property in good repair. In its online repairs policy, the landlord states it will provide a 24-hour response when a resident has no heating and hot water between 1 November and 30 April.
  3. In the landlord’s repairs guide it says it aims to complete repairs right first time and within timescales.
  4. The landlord operates a right to repair scheme. This allows the resident to ask the landlord to use another contractor should it not have resolved a qualifying repair within a specified timescale, which was 1 day for this repair. If not achieved the resident can be due compensation of £10 then £2 a day for the time the issue remains to a maximum of £50.
  5. When the resident reported the repair, the landlord correctly classified it as an emergency, so it should have responded to it in 24 hours. However, the appointment offered to the resident was for 4 working days afterwards. The landlord has not offered an explanation to why this was not in line with its policy.
  6. Following the appointment, the landlord ordered the parts and reclassified the repair as a ‘normal’ repair, so it should respond to it in 21 working days. The landlord fixed the repair in this period. As such the landlord has stated there was no delay to this stage of the repair. However, the resident was still experiencing the problem which previously demanded a 24-hour response. The landlord classifies other ‘normal’ repairs to be things such as replacing tap washers which cannot be in the same category as not having heating and hot water. Presumably reclassifying the repair to be responded to in 21 working days worked for the landlord as the parts would take this time to become available. However, it does not mean the resident was not experiencing distress and a loss of confidence in the landlord due to its actions and the lack of heating and hot water.
  7. The landlord classifies an ‘urgent’ repair to include things which it needs to put right to prevent the resident’s inconvenience and to keep the property in reasonable condition and requires attendance in 5 working days. It may have been more reasonable to reclassify the repair in this category. The landlord’s likelihood to overrun its timescale should not be a reason for classification of a repair. Classification should be according to its policy which relates to impact on the resident.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord needed to obtain parts however it constituted a lengthy delay for the resident during the winter period.
  9. There has been no evidence provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord gave the resident the information concerning the right to repair. This may have allowed the resident the option to get the issue resolved faster, if not it would have provided him with a compensation framework. This would have worked out at the maximum compensation of £50.
  10. The resident reported to the Ombudsman the landlord did not inquire if he had any vulnerabilities, the landlord has not provided any evidence to the contrary. This means the landlord could not evidence it had adequately assessed the impact the lack of heating and hot water may have had on the resident.
  11. The resident also reported the landlord did not offer any alternative form of heating, again there has been no evidence provided by the landlord that this was a consideration. The Ombudsman was pleased to understand the resident did not classify himself as vulnerable and had his own electric heater. However, the resident did inform the Ombudsman he stopped his child visiting during this time due to the lack of heating and hot water.
  12. When the resident complained the landlord offered £60, £40 for the delay in the repair and £20 for reimbursed electricity costs. The resident had advised the landlord he had spent £100 on additional heating costs, however he was only able to evidence £20 of this.
  13. The resident informed the Ombudsman he spent more money travelling to friends and relatives houses to shower. The resident also informed the Ombudsman the landlord had asked him if he had any gym memberships so he could use the gym to shower in. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord was in a difficult position if these costs are not adequately evidenced.
  14. The landlord left the resident without heating or hot water for a total period of 21 days which was outside the initial timescale of 24 hours. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence the landlord was looking at ways it could support the resident in identifying and overcoming the obstacles he faced by not having heating and hot water.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and hot water due to a faulty boiler.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £170. This is inclusive of the £60 previously offered. This comprises of:
    1. £50 to reflect the compensation due should the resident have pursued the right to repair.
    2. £20 for the resident’s additional energy consumption.
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is to consider asking residents reporting such repairs whether they have any vulnerabilities and the impact the repair may have on it. Where the resident identifies a vulnerability, the landlord is to then consider whether there is anything it can offer to mitigate the impact of the repair.