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

MHS Homes Ltd (202305464)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305464

MHS Homes Ltd

18 March 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 the resident’s reports of her electric tripping.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 11 April 2005. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident is diagnosed with sleep apnoea and uses a CPAP machine during the night to assist with her breathing.
  2. The resident first reported that her electric was tripping whenever her heating or hot water came on in early February 2021, shortly after having a new boiler installed. She said it happened on some occasions up to 5 times a day. The landlord’s gas contractors, who fitted the new boiler, attended the resident’s property on 11 February 2021. They confirmed they found no error in the boiler but believed the fault to be with the residual current device (RCD) switch which was then causing the electrics to trip. The repair job, for the electrics to be investigated for a fault, was marked as urgent by the landlord; however, there is no evidence to show that this was ever actioned.
  3. The resident reported the same issue again in April 2021, and the gas contractor attended on 15 April 2021. The record log for this visit confirmed that the gas contractor had previously advised the fault was in the RCD switch; however, there has been no record provided of what repairs, if any, took place during this visit.
  4. From December 2021 until the time the fault was discovered and fixed in November 2022, the gas contractor attended the property 7 times. During that time, there is evidence of back and forth communication between the gas contractor and the landlord trying to sort the issue and ascertain whose responsibility it was. The gas contractor first advised the fault was not with the boiler on 11 February 2021. It then consistently said that the boiler was not faulty throughout the duration of the issue and asked the landlord to arrange for a qualified electrician to attend. The landlord said it was always assumed that it was a boiler issue and therefore the gas contractor held the repair responsibility.
  5. The landlord commissioned a joint survey to be done with an electrician and gas contractor (different to the landlord’s own contractor) to investigate the issue. This was undertaken and sent to the landlord on 2 February 2022, and detailed the following:
    1. Testing on the circuit that was tripping showed it to have low insultation resistance.
    2. The electrical supply cables for the boiler were routed alongside heating pipes. When those pipes got hot, it caused a reaction which tripped the RCD.
    3. It recommended that the circuit in question be re-wired.
    4. The gas contractor who attended at the same time confirmed there were no faults to the boiler and reiterated the faults found by the electrician.
  6. In April 2022, following the gas contractor confirming it would arrange for its own electrician to attend to look at the fault, it informed the landlord that the resident was “connected to air” in the night, and when the electric tripped during the night, she was waking up “gasping for air”.
  7. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 12 December 2022. It said:
    1. A gas contractor checked the boiler in December 2021, and found no issues and asked for an electrician to check the circuits in the property. This was not done, and the landlord apologised for the breakdown in communication.
    2. Electrical testing can be difficult and lengthy involving trial and error. The landlord said it was always assumed that as only the boiler was affected, a gas contractor would need to conduct further investigations and continue to send out their own electricians as it was “contractually obligated.”
    3. It understood that the resident had been intermittently affected by some loss of service over the previous 11 months due to the electrical fault not being detected.
    4. The gas contractor had confirmed it attended the property 7 times for the same issue as the resident was unable to reset the electrics herself.
    5. It upheld the complaint as the electrical contractor should have conducted testing after the gas contractor confirmed there had been no faults with the supply to the boiler.
    6. It offered £175 for the inconvenience caused and confirmed the issue was resolved on 23 November 2022, when an electrician attended and found the fault in the cabling.
  8. The resident did not accept the landlord’s compensation at stage 1. She stated that she had gone without hot water and heating for 2 years. She said as an elderly person with a series of health conditions it had impacted her mental health.
  9. After requesting escalation to stage 2 on 23 January 2023, the landlord gave its response on 7 February 2023. It said reiterated the points it had made previously, upheld the complaint, and offered compensation of £250.
  10. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she had refused the compensation offered as she did not feel it was enough for “putting her life at risk” due to her use of breathing apparatus at night for her sleep apnoea. When the landlord provided the evidenced requested as part of this investigation, it advised it was not aware that the resident had sleep apnoea or that there was medical equipment in the property that required electrical power.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact the delays in resolving the issue had on her health to her landlord. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the residents health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s electrical safety policy states that it will ensure its properties are safe and in good repair. It states that it will carry out remedial works in good time to keep residents safe and ensure electrical installations are maintained to a high standard. It states it has full and complete records and quality monitoring systems in place.
  2. The landlord has a partnership with its gas contractor and asks residents to report issues with their boilers and heating systems directly to them. The landlord’s website states that for emergency repairs, including a total loss of heating or hot water, the gas contractor will attend within 24 hours, or 4 hours for vulnerable or elderly people. For partial loss of heating or hot water, the contractor will attend within 3 working days, and for resetting of controls, it will attend within 7 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will award the following amounts:
    1. Between £0-£10 where there has been no impact.
    2. Between £35-£50 where the impact is low.
    3. Between £175 and £250 where the impact is medium.
    4. Between £250 and £500 where the impact is high.
  4. It further states that for loss of heating for longer than 3 working days between November and April, it will provide compensation of £15 per day, up to maximum of £150. For loss of hot water for a period longer than 5 working days between November and April, it will provide £5 per day, up to a maximum of £50.

Electrics tripping

  1. A warm home and hot water are basic needs for any household and a lack of heating or hot water does not just cause discomfort but can be a risk to health and well-being. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report ‘cold comforts’ on complaints about heating, hot water, and energy in social housing, published in February 2021, highlighted that this Service’s investigations had repeatedly found a failure to put things “right first time”. This report said that of particular concern was the promptness of landlords’ actions, given the significant impact of problems during the colder winter months. The report recommended that, where a problem with the heating and hot water could not be resolved quickly, landlords should ensure residents have access to temporary heating, and provide a clear timescale for repairs.
  2. The resident first reported that her electric tripped when her boiler was in use in February 2021. The landlord attended, in line with its policy, on 11 February 2021. However, during this visit, the gas contractor confirmed that the issue was not with the boiler but with the electrics and therefore an electrician was required. An urgent job was raised, but there is no evidence to show this was ever actioned or completed. This is unsatisfactory. Landlord’s systems to track and monitor repairs need to be robust. It must have effective reporting and systems in place to ensure repairs are monitored to completion. Where timescales beyond the repairs policy have elapsed without resolution of the repair it should ensure these jobs are reported on and actioned. Landlords should rely on systems and not residents to manage timely repair completions. Not doing so impacted on the significant delay in resolving the issue.
  3. The gas contractor attended the resident’s property again on 9 December 2021, and in confirming again there was no issue with the boiler, it asked the landlord to arrange for an electrician to attend. Again, this was never actioned. While the landlord did acknowledge this failure and apologised for the breakdown in communication, it is not appropriate that it took a year for the landlord to action this request. This caused the resident to live unnecessarily with the fault for another year. It is also important to note that this issue continued through the winter when heating is a necessity and although the issue was intermittent, it still caused a reduction in the resident’s access to the heating and hot water supply. Further the resident could not rely on the provision of heating and hot water, she did not know the next time her provision would cut out. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was elderly and vulnerable.
  4. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord ever considered temporary solutions for when the electrics did trip and the resident was unable to reset the RCD herself. The landlord was aware throughout the duration of this issue that the resident faced loss of heating and hot water and it would have been best practice for it to discuss any temporary solutions with the resident, especially given that she was vulnerable. This Service understands from the resident that at times she did not turn her heating on due to the electrics tripping every time she did. While the issue was only reported to the landlord on the 7 occasions when she was unable to reset the tripped switch, the landlord was aware that the issue occurred every time the boiler was used. Further to this, an internal email on the 8 December 2021 states that the resident was elderly and was often having to live in the property with no heating or hot water. Failing to recognise this and consider temporary solutions while it sought a fix was not appropriate. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable and did not consider the impact of this repeated fault on the resident. The landlord failed to recognise the specific effect on the resident and respond accordingly.
  5. The landlord then commissioned a survey by a compliance firm in a joint visit with an electrician and gas specialist in February 2022; a year after the resident first reported the issue. Given the time that had elapsed and that it had been unsuccessful in resolving it, it was appropriate for the landlord to obtain this survey. However, the commissioning of this report came much later than it should have done, it is unreasonable the resident had to wait 12 months before this survey went ahead. While undertaking the survey showed a commitment by the landlord to resolve the fault, the delay in recognising the necessity of such a report was unreasonable and would have added to the frustrations, and inconvenience to the resident.
  6. That report highlighted the issue was thought to be in supply cables that ran alongside the heating pipes under the flooring. The report was sent to the landlord on 2 February 2022; there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted upon the information. This caused another unnecessary delay. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to act quickly following receipt of the report and in not doing so, the landlord failed to recognise the impact of the issue. It failed to act in a timely manner to resolve the fault following receipt of this report, given that it was a further 9 months until the issue was rectified. Further to this, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, who spent the 9 months following the survey reporting the issue, would have been much less had the landlord acted in a timelier manner.
  7. Although it did appropriately respond to the resident’s report of issues with her electrics, in line with its policy, it is unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to rectify the issue at the first opportunity and further that they kept repeating the same response, leaving the resident without a consistent hot water and heating supply for over a year. Landlords are expected to follow the principle of getting it right first time, highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report ‘Cold Comforts” and it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to get it right for 21 months.
  8. Despite being aware of the issue in December 2021, and it being reiterated on 2 February 2022 that the issue was potentially to do with electric cables running alongside the hot water pipes, the landlord advised the resident the issue may be due to an issue with her freezer; This was 10 days after the landlord had received the report about the potential wiring issue. It instructed her to take some actions such as plugging other items into the same socket the freezer was in before it would send a contractor out again to investigate the issue. Further to this, the resident herself had an engineer attend under her freezer warranty due to the landlord’s assertion. This highlights a lack of communication and issues with record keeping within the landlord. While the landlord was aware of the action it needed to take, this had evidently not been recorded appropriately and the resident was caused to expend time and effort trying to resolve the issue.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that it was always assumed that as the boiler was the only thing affected when the electric tripped it would be the gas contractor that would have needed to attend and investigate further. While that may have been true initially, the gas contractor consistently said to the landlord following its visits that the issue was not with the boiler but with the electric. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for it to of repeatedly assumed that the issue was with the boiler. Further to this, it was unreasonable for the landlord to have recognised the incorrectness of the assumption in its stage 1 response but then not follow that up with an apology for basing its opinion on an assumption rather than fact. Recognising this failure and apologising for it would have helped improve the landlord and resident relationship.
  10. The landlord failed to take action on the gas contractor’s repeated recommendations that it was an electrical fault. This caused further unnecessary delays and highlights a lack of sufficient communication and record keeping within the landlord. Had notes from the contractor been properly read or actioned, the unnecessarily long delays in this case would not have occurred and the impact on the resident would have been reduced.
  11. Throughout the complaint process, the resident raised that she was elderly with health conditions and the delay in resolving the issues had an impact on her. The landlord’s website, in relation to emergency repairs, states it will attend within 4 hours for vulnerable or elderly residents. While the landlord and its gas contractor did attend the resident’s property each time she reported the issue, the extended time that it took to resolve the issue was not appropriate in the circumstances. It left a vulnerable resident, intermittently without heating and hot water for unreasonable periods of time, and this caused distress to the resident who had to expend time chasing a repair that took 21 months to be resolved. While the Ombudsman appreciates that faults cannot always be found on the first visit, the landlord’s repeated ineffective action impacted on this resident. The landlord worked on assumptions at times, there was miscommunication and repetition of the same failures with its contractor, there was a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation and a disregard to the impact given her vulnerabilities.
  12. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident raised that she used a CPAP machine at night as she had sleep apnoea, and the tripping of the electric caused her distress in case it happened at night. The landlord has asserted that it was not aware there was medical equipment within the property that needed power. However, the evidence shows that the gas contractor informed the landlord on 28 April 2022 that the resident was connected to air at night and when the electric tripped, she was waking up gasping for air. The evidence shows that the landlord did not act upon this information. Landlords should record any medical issues and vulnerabilities to ensure that, where there are issues such as those in this case, repairs can be appropriately expediated. The landlord’s failure to appropriately record the resident’s medical issue was unsatisfactory and the landlord should ensure the resident’s record is updated accordingly.
  13. The awareness that the resident’s CPAP machine might stop working during the night caused considerable distress to both the resident and her family. This concern was brought to the landlord’s attention when the resident’s grandson visited the landlord’s office, on 13 December 2021, to express worries about the impact on the resident. Although the visit note does not explicitly mention sleep apnoea, it highlights significant health-related concerns. The landlord was also informed by the gas contractor of the same in April 2022. The landlord demonstrated little regard for the potential consequences faced by the resident, who endured prolonged concerns, fearing that her CPAP machine might unexpectedly shut off while she slept. The evidence shows a lack of urgency, empathy, and action from the landlord when the resident and her family raised concerns directly.
  14. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, offered the resident £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident first reported this issue in February 2021, the gas contractor confirmed it was a fault with the electrics 10 months later in December 2021, and the landlord fixed the fault 11 months later in November 2022. During 2022, the resident had 7 callouts from the gas contractor and spent time chasing a repair. She was evidently distressed at the situation. The sum of £250 is not an appropriate amount and does not accurately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused in this case. An order has been made to compensate for the failings.
  15. Overall, the landlord failed to act upon the information given in the first instance in February 2021. It then took another 21 months to resolve the issue fully. Throughout that period, the resident expended time to pursue a repair while living with the concern whenever she wished to use her boiler her electrics would have tripped. This was further exacerbated by her worry about her health conditions and the use of a CPAP machine through night. During this time, the landlord failed to recognise the crux of the issue and missed the gas contractor’s conclusion that it was an electrical fault. The landlord failed to take ownership of the issue and admitted that it always assumed, despite being told otherwise by its own contactor, that it was an issue with the boiler. It failed to consider temporary solutions for a resident who was vulnerable and who was unable to have full use of her heating. The landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving the issue and failed to evidence in its communication with the resident any empathy towards the situation and the distress caused.
  16. Therefore, taking into account all the failings identified in this report, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of her electrics tripping.
  17. Considering all the circumstances, including the resident’s health conditions as an aggravating factor an order for compensation has been made for £1,500. This is made up of the following:
    1. £300 for repeated visits undertaken by the gas contractor where the issue was not resolved.
    2. £200 for the lack of communication
    3. £100 for failing to consider temporary heating and hot water solutions.
    4. £500 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
    5. £400 for the overall delay in resolving the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her electrics tripping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should pay compensation to the resident of £1,500.
  2. A senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Carry out a case review of it’s handling of the issues in case, looking particularly at the reasons behind the extensive delays to resolve the issues in this case and the repeated failure to act upon the gas contractor’s advice that an electrician was required. This must identify any learning points and opportunities for service improvement and the landlord must share the findings with this service.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on “Knowledge and Information Management” May 2023 and provide this service with its assessment and any identified learning, including how it will embed that learning in its policies and procedures going forward.