The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Longhurst Group Limited (202000333)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000333

Longhurst Group Limited

4 December 2020


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the installation of a new boiler.

Summary of events

  1. On 16 January 2020 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form, stating that had a new boiler fitted on 13 November 2019, a previous appointment having been changed. She was expecting to be the landlord’s operatives’ first call of the day, but this did not happen, and they did not arrive until late in the day when there was little time left and it was dark. She reported that the situation was chaotic and messy with equipment spilling out from the kitchen into her front room and back garden patio. She noted that the operatives were installing the boiler “low down” and questioned this, suggesting it should go in the airing cupboard with the flue directed through the roof. She was advised that the existing hole for the flue needed to be used and the siting of the new boiler could not be helped. When the operatives left, they stated that the electrics to the boiler needed to be sorted out and that she would be contacted the following week to arrange this. They left a thermostat behind ready for this job to be done.
  2. The resident complained that she had to chase this up with the landlord and its contractors and its electrician did not attend until 12 December 2019. They then could not do the job because they did not have the programmer they needed, and it was to be rearranged. She then heard nothing further until she chased the situation and had to wait until 7 January 2020 for another of the landlord’s electricians to attend. The resident reported that that operative had complained about how low the boiler was and that its positioning was impeding his ability to sort out the electrics and that the boiler’s electrical inlets had been covered over.
  3. The resident reported having spoken to another plumber who also advised that the boiler should not have been positioned as it was. She asked the landlord to come to the property to inspect the work with a view to determining whether the boiler should be moved. Finally, she complained that the operatives left a large box of rubbish outside her property which they said would be collected the next day but after three weeks a relative had to take it to the local tip.
  4. On 20 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her complaint which it summarised as three issues: its contractor leaving rubbish outside of the property which she had had to dispose of after it failed to do so; the boiler being installed too low; and the electrics to the boiler not being completed until 7 January 2020. It said it would investigate the position and respond within 30 calendar days.
  5. On 24 January 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident by telephone as she had contacted it to discuss the issues identified. In the landlord’s letter of 14 February 2020, it apologised that it had not yet been able to provide a complaint response, stated that it would do so as soon as it was able, and offered £25 compensation for the delay.
  6. In the landlord’s complaint response of 2 March 2020, it accepted that there were delays in the electrics being dealt with for the boiler installation, that two appointments had been “cancelled”, and that rubbish had been left outside the property, for which the contractor apologised. The landlord offered £75 compensation (£20 for the two “failed” appointments; £30 as a goodwill gesture for the delay; and £25 for the delay in providing the complaint response).
  7. Regarding the siting of the boiler, the landlord explained that the new boiler was wider and longer than the old one, but its pre-installation survey determined that the best positioning for it was where it was put. This was to prevent additional works in having to re-site the flue. It explained that its engineers were then bound to place the new boiler as set out in the survey. It accepted that the electrics should have been relocated for easier access and that feedback would be given to its operatives on this point. Equally, the rubbish should have been removed and feedback would be given on this point too. It advised that, going forward it had decided to ask residents to sign the surveys to ensure they were happy with their boiler location.
  8. On 18 March 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s response, highlighting that her neighbours had identical properties to her and had had their boilers fitted in the airing cupboard. She therefore considered the landlord’s surveyor was to blame and that it was unfair that she was having a new and noisy boiler taking up a disproportionate amount of room in her living space.
  9. On 7 May 2020 the resident reported to this Service that her landlord had declined to comment on her response letter although she had received the £75 compensation offered.
  10. On 15 June 2020 the resident described to this Service the resolution she was looking for to her complaint. She stated she was unhappy with the siting of the boiler and had not been told of the position when the pre-installation survey had taken place. She had assumed it would be placed in the airing cupboard with a flue through the roof. She said this was what had happened in her neighbours’ properties who had had the same work done and had the same layout as hers. She wanted the landlord to raise the boiler from its current position so that she could use the work surface beneath it, or alternatively re-site it in her airing cupboard with the flue being put through her roof.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord undertook to install a new boiler in the resident’s property and there is no dispute about whether this was the landlord’s responsibility. The resident considers that problems were caused by the landlord’s operatives attending late in the day when they were under time pressure. In fact, the evidence shows that it was the landlord’s surveyor who recommended that the boiler should be installed in its current position and it is that decision that the resident is questioning. The landlord’s operatives were bound to follow the outcome and recommendations of the survey.
  2. The resident is unhappy with the placement of the boiler as it interferes with the use of her work surface and she considers it might reasonably have been placed in the airing cupboard, as she reports has been done in neighbouring properties of identical design. This Service cannot offer an expert opinion on the correct (or indeed, safe) positioning of the boiler. Instead, the focus of this assessment is on whether the landlord has properly considered the resident’s concerns and adequately responded to her complaint. 
  3. The landlord accepted that there had been service failings on its behalf as there was a delay in finalising the installation. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this as the evidence does confirm this was the case. The landlord also acted reasonably when it accepted that there had been two failed appointments in connection with the work, which is borne out by the evidence provided to this investigation. Further, the landlord accepted it was late in providing its complaint response. It has apologised for these failings and offered compensation, the amount of which, the resident has not challenged. Consequently, this Service considers that the landlord has acted appropriately in its response to the resident’s report of problems with the installation and its accepted service failings following an investigation into the position.
  4. It is understood that this offers the resident little comfort given her understanding of her neighbours’ treatment. However, due to confidentiality and data protection issues the landlord could not discuss other tenants’ arrangements with the resident and should not be expected to confirm what action it has or has not taken in other properties. The resident understandably reports being confused by the surveyor’s decision given her understanding of the wider situation. Further, given that a question has arisen as to the correct position of the electrics to the boiler, with the landlord accepting that they might have been placed elsewhere, this raises a possible safety issue. The recommendation at the end of this report is made with these two issues in mind.
  5. For the sake of completeness, the complaint went through the landlord’s complaints procedure which was in the process of being revised. The landlord applied its earlier one stage approach. This left the resident unable to challenge its findings. It has now introduced a two-stage approach which is appropriate and would have enabled this resident to gain further clarity on its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the installation of a new boiler.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the boiler installation, making admissions of failings on its behalf, offering compensation and apologising.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should visit the property to:
    1. Check the installation of the boiler and the position of the electrics (to ensure safety);
    2. Discuss with the resident her preferred alternative location of the boiler;
    3. Discuss with the resident what would be required to move the boiler to her preferred location and whether/to what extent it would be willing to arrange and finance such a move.