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

Network Homes Limited (201812288)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201812288

Network Homes Limited

24 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 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:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system resulting in the loss of heating and hot water and the level of compensation it offered in respect of this.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after the resident exhausted the members’ complaints procedure.
  3. The resident’s complaint includes how the landlord handled reports of historic repairs to the heating system between 2012 and 2016 including the loss of heating and hot water at the property and the level of compensation paid to her in October 2017 by the landlord of £800.
  4. The resident has provided a timeline document which evidences that she submitted a complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2016 in relation to the hot water and heating issues since 2012. On 5 December 2016, the landlord provided the resident with the website link to this Service. On 6 December 2016, the resident replied to the landlord thanking it for raising the complaint again and that her next option was to contact her MP and the Ombudsman.
  5. The historic incidents the resident complained about took place between 2012 and 2016 and whilst the resident made reference to the general lack of heating and hot water at the property in her initial contact with this Service on 12 December 2018, this was brought to the attention of the Ombudsman several years after the incidents occurred. In view of this, this aspect of the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to investigate.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at a one bedroom flat (“the property”) in a multi-storey building comprising of over 100 flats (“the block”).
  2. The block historically had problems with the communal heating system since 2012 as it broke down regularly resulting in the interruption of heating and hot water supply to residents. Therefore, by December 2016 the communal boilers were all replaced and each flat has a heat interface unit (“HIU”) installed that delivers the heating and hot water from the centralised boilers into the flats.
  3. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident although the landlord was made aware that the resident suffered from ill health and asthma.

Tenancy Agreement, Policy and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states the following:

a.     The landlord is obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by it for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, electricity including gas and water pipes, water heaters and central heating installations.

b.     The resident is obliged to report to the landlord promptly any damage, loss or malfunction or other difficulty experienced in relation to the property and allow its employees or contractors access, subject to reasonable notice, to inspect the condition of the property or carry out repairs or other work to the property. The landlord will normally give 24 hours notice but more immediate access might be required in any emergency.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (November 2016 version) states the following:

a.     Emergency reports are those including where there is an immediate danger of life or limb, major damage to the property or heating or hot water failure in winter. It will be responded to within four hours but the action taken would usually be limited to making the property safe and not undertaking the repair. After the initial visit, the following day or the next practical day (if the event is over an extended break), the property will be revisited to undertake the repair or prepare for its completion.

b.     Responsive/routine repairs will be carried out within five working days but where specialist materials or parts have to be sourced or the work is not causing inconvenience, it might take more than five working days but it should not be more than 15 working days to complete.

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy (September 2016 version) states that if it has upheld a complaint, it will aim to put things right for the resident including providing an apology; an explanation providing a full answer to all the points raised in the complaint; action to put things right such as completing an outstanding repair; and financial compensation.
  2. The compensation policy recommends that when the landlord is considering compensation it should take into account the impact of the failure on the resident for the delay. For low impact delays it would be £5 per week; medium impact delays would be £10 per week; and major impact delays with possible injury to health would be £20 per week. The same level of rates apply for distress caused to the resident including stress, anxiety, frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience, worry or outrage depend on the impact level. For time and trouble compensation the rates are £1 per week for low impact; £3 per week for medium impact; and £5 per week for major impact. The landlord is also able to make a discretionary payment.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy (September 2017 version) states it had a three stage complaints process with the following timescales. It will acknowledge the complaint within two working days; respond to stage one complaints within ten working days; respond to of stage two complaints within 15 working days; and at stage three arrange a panel to hear the complaint within 30 working days of receiving the request. The landlord aims to adhere to these timescales for 90 percent of cases. If the landlord is unable to meet these timescales then it will send a holding letter to the resident explaining the reasons for the delay and provide a new target response date which will be no longer than the original target timescale.

 

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of its repair records for both the block and the property. They provide a description of the repair issue including the date it was raised; the completion target date; and the practical completion date. It has also provided the works completion forms completed by its heating contractor and a record of its communications with the resident and internally. The resident has provided a ‘approximate’ timeline document with notes she made of the repairs, telephone calls and emails with the landlord.
  2. The repairs records states that on 27 January 2017, the installation of the commercial gas boiler was completed. The resident however continued to experience various problems with her heating and hot water supply and she raised repairs between 2 October 2017 and 19 June 2018, and during this period the landlord identified that the HIU needed to be changed because there was a problem with the HIU control panel. The resident states that the HIU was installed on 1 June 2018.
  3. On approximately 8 and 24 October 2018, the resident said that she chased the landlord in relation to the heating, water and boiler repairs and was advised that it had sent an email to its gas department.
  4. On 24 October 2018, the resident raised a stage one complaint in relation to a meter reading issue since the installation of the HIU and the heating contractor not returning her calls although these issues are not part of the substantive complaint.
  5. On 19 and 26 November 2018, the resident said that she chased the repair matter again and the landlord advised that it would chase the gas department. On the latter date, the resident advised the landlord that there was no hot water and low flow of pressure in the radiators. On 26 November 2018, the repairs records states that there was intermittent hot water with the completion date recorded as 21 February 2019. However, the works completion form, dated 27 November 2018, states that the heating contractor attended to the no hot water issue. It found an issue with the actuator valve and therefore the HIU manufacturer were contacted to attend to repair it as the HIU was under warranty. It is not known whether the heating contractor left the property with the hot water working.
  6. On 29 November 2018, there was a report of no heating or hot water however no completion date is recorded on the repair’s records. On the same date, the resident informed the landlord that the HIU manufacturer did not attend the appointment without notification. The landlord replied and said that the HIU manufacturer admitted and apologised for not attending on 29 November 2018 (no reason for this was given), and that it would like to attend on 4 December 2018 and would bring the boiler part to rectify the issue.
  7. On 3 December 2018, in an email from the resident to the landlord she repeated the ongoing repair issues that were outstanding including intermittent hot water which was now mainly cold; pressure issues since the installation of the HIU; and the HIU was leaking, and stated that she wished the repair issues ‘gets sorted out for good’. On 4 December 2018, the resident chased the landlord for acknowledgement of the complaint email of 3 December 2018 and for it to be forwarded to senior staff. There is no evidence that it responded.
  8. On 4 December 2018, the works completion form states that the heating contractor attended the property due to no heating but the HIU manufacturer were also due to attend but had not arrived. The heating contractor was unable to wait as it had other jobs booked. The resident’s notes indicate that the HIU manufacturer attended in the afternoon and advised that the issues were with the volume/flow of water going into the shower and there was not enough flow from the HIU; it believed that the communal boiler flow needed to be addressed and that it might not be compatible.
  9. The landlord subsequently advised that its plumbing contractor would attend on 6 December 2018 to assess and resolve the issue. The resident’s notes state that the plumbing contractor changed the hose piping and shower head and the flow volume increased but there was still only intermittent warm water in the shower and no hot water in the basin. The plumbing contractor was unable to resolve the hot water issues because it believed that it was still an issue with the boiler. The resident subsequently informed the landlord therefore that she still had heating and water issues and she believed that it was a compatibility issue with the communal boiler. The landlord advised that its heating contractor and another contractor would attend on 10 December 2018.
  10. On 6 December 2018, an urgent repair was raised to attend the property due to no heating and hot water. The completion date is recorded as 25 February 2019 on the repair’s records.
  11. On 7 December 2018, in an email to the landlord, the resident said that the complaints had gone beyond stage one and needed to be escalated to the ‘highest level’.
  12. On 7 December 2018, the heating contractor advised the resident that it was unable to arrange the joint visit with the other contractor but that it would still attend on 10 December 2018 in relation to a radiator/piping issue. The resident advised it that she was going into the third week of cold water.
  13. On 12 December 2018, the resident said she left a message for the landlord because there was no hot water again, and requested her complaint to be escalated to senior staff. The landlord’s records of this date states that the resident advised that the lack of hot water issue was ‘going on for weeks’. It further states that the other contactor, who was supposed to attend on 10 December 2018, advised that it did not have a contract for the building and did not own the ‘feed’ and the contract was with the plumbing contractor. The landlord then arranged a joint visit at the property with the heating and plumbing contractors for 14 December 2018.
  14. On 12 December 2018, there is an entry in the repairs records raising a repair for the landlord to attend the property with the heating contractor to try to find the cause of the issue with the hot water pressure and that it was possibly the mixing valve from the outlets. The completion date is recorded as 14 December 2018. The works completion form further said that on attending to this repair, the strainer was blocked, which was cleaned. It was then found to be working ‘better’ but there was a possible fault with insufficient flow rate from the boiler room.
  15. On 12 December 2018, the resident initially contacted this Service to complain of a lack of heating and hot water at the property and she was advised to exhaust the landlord’s complaints process.
  16. On 13 December 2018, the landlord informed the resident that her email (although it is unclear exactly which one it was referring too) had been forwarded to its gas team to address the issues and respond to her within ten working days. The resident responded on 14 December 2018 and advised that she had been informed that her formal complaints had been forwarded to the gas team ‘weeks ago’ but as she had not received contact from them, she requested it to be escalated to its senior staff member.
  17. On 14 December 2018, the resident’s notes state that the heating and plumbing contactors attended the joint visits and cleaned the strainer and advised that the pump in the communal area needed to be changed. It is not known whether the heating and hot water issues were resolved at this visit and there are no notes of the visit in the landlord’s records.
  18. On 3 January 2019, the resident requested an update to be provided on her complaint in relation to the heating issue.
  19. Between 3 and 4 January 2019, there was a leak from the HIU which was raised as a repair. The heating contractor attended as an emergency and found that the isolation valve for the bath was leaking through the spindle but after turning it off, it only had a ‘slight weep’. The resident was advised to turn the HIU off if it got worse. On 5 January 2019, the resident advised the landlord that this meant that she had no hot water and if the heating is turned on, it appears to cause a leak from somewhere else. She therefore intended to attend the gym to shower, which she joined in late 2018 to shower because of the lack of hot water and to walk around in a mall to keep warm stating that she was recovering from surgery at the time. The resident further advised that she was still awaiting a formal response to her complaint, which she had requested many times, and that her escalation requests were either ignored or stalled.
  20. On 8 January 2019, the heating contractor attended the property. It found that the valve body was leaking and a replacement valve was fitted, which tested ‘ok’. The resident’s notes state that landlord’s staff also attended this visit when she went through the points in her emails in relation to the ongoing water and heating issues requesting that the complaint is escalated to senior staff. The landlord’s staff disagreed that the HIU and communal boiler were not compatible and asked the resident to give them a chance to see how the repairs go which it would monitor. 
  21. On 17 January 2019, the resident sent an email to the landlord stating that, following the repair on 8 January 2019, there was low water flow/pressure in the kitchen and basin and warm water in the shower. The resident again said that she had not received a response to her complaints and her escalation requests to senior staff had been ignored. On 18 January 2019, the resident reported that there was no hot water in the shower and low flow in all the taps. The heating contractor advised that the repair would be carried out on 22 January 2019 because the landlord had requested pressure valves fitting to the HIU piping outlet and inflows. The works completion form indicates that the temperature and pressures gauges were repaired and the ‘HWS issues’ were dealt with on 22 January 2019.
  22. The landlord said that it did not know the reason for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint or the exact date of the response although the record was closed by it on 31 January 2019. The stage one response was in relation to the meter reading issue and the landlord said that it had reminded its heating contractor that they must respond to customers within their agreed timeframe. The response did not cover the substantive issues.
  23. On 7 February 2019, there was a report of low water pressure and temperature with the repair completion date recorded as 17 June 2019.
  24. On 8 February 2019, the resident’s notes state that she reported to the landlord that there was intermittent warm water and cold flow in the shower again including pressure issues in all of the basins. The heating contractor attended on the same day and re-drained the strainers but the hot water was still temperamental because the flow interchange was not heating and there was no return despite cleaning the strainers. The heating contractor advised that the timer unit was not compatible with the HIU and that the timer would be replaced once ordered. There is no evidence of this repair in the landlord’s records or whether the order was placed by the landlord. 
  25. On 25 February 2019, the resident’s notes state that she reported to the landlord that there was no hot water and it raised the repair with the heating contractor. The resident chased this on 26 February 2019 as she received no telephone call in relation to the attendance, and chased again on 27 February 2019 when she spoke to the heating contractor. She informed it that she was ‘angry’ and that the ‘temporary fixes’ were not working, and an appointment was arranged to repair the issue on 28 February 2019. The landlord’s internal notes of 27 February 2019 state that the heating contractor had advised the matter was not as simple as sending out an engineer, the issues had been ongoing for a few months and it was not getting resolved so it needed to ‘come with a POA to resolve this’.
  26. On 26 February 2019, the resident escalated the complaint to stage two for the following reasons, which the landlord acknowledged on 28 February 2019:

a.     She had a minimum of 73 contacts with the landlord since December to try and escalate the issue and get it resolved.

b.     As part of the complaint response, the landlord installed gauges to measure the flow of the water pressure but it did not re-attend to read the pressure. She had been advised by the HIU manufacturer that the HIU on site was not compatible to the communal boiler so it will never work effectively and that she had to raise a ‘new order’ as there was no hot water which had been the ninth order since ‘December’ to attempt to resolve the issue.

c.      She was a pre-operation patient but was unable to keep her wound clean and unable to lift kettles to bath, and was upset that she was unable to shower/bath properly before her procedure. 

  1. On 28 February 2019, the repairs records state that the no hot water repair was completed on 1 March 2019. The works completion form, dated 28 February 2019, stated that the heating contractor was unable to change the thermostat because the one it had was faulty so a return visit would be required. It also inspected the ongoing ‘hws issues’. The contractor drained the HIU; cleaned the strainer baskets and refitted it; and refilled the HIU and vented it. The ‘hws’ in sinks were checked but there were no issues, and the bath/sink was also working. The contractor informed the resident that the heating contractor was however not responsible for the bath/shower but before leaving checked it and advised that the shower was working.  The resident subsequently informed the heating contractor that she was unable to turn the heating off and her notes state that the hot water was still intermittent and cold water in the shower. There is no evidence to confirm whether a repair was carried out to rectify this.
  2. On 12 March 2019, the resident telephoned the landlord to advise that there was still an issue with the hot water, shower water and she had an incompatible thermostat.  She advised that the landlord promises returns calls but has not received them.
  3. On 13 March 2019, the landlord sent an email to the resident and apologised that it had not been in contact with her. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two and a response was due by 19 March 2019 although the resident would be contacted if an extension was required. The landlord issued its stage two response on 20 March 2019 (having apologised to the resident on the same date for missing the response deadline). The landlord advised that it would attend with the heating contractor on 25 March 2019. It will also carry out a full investigation into the heating and hot water issues at the property and ‘draw up a comprehensive plan to remedy any issues’. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues and advised it will do ‘everything’ it can to restore the services to a satisfactory level ‘very soon’, and once resolved award compensation to the resident for the distress caused.
  4. On 25 March 2019, the resident’s notes state that the landlord and heating contractor attended the property to carry out their investigation however the heating still did not switch off but the hot water in the shower was now working. As the next step, it advised that it would remove the return flow blockage, on a date to be confirmed, and review the outcome. There is no record of this visit on the landlord’s records.
  5. On 25 March 2019, the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage three for the following reasons:

a.     The complaint had been poorly handled and the landlord missed the stage two response date of 19 March 2019 without contact, and historically the landlord has failed to deal with complaints properly.

b.     The communication from the landlord was poor and the issues had not been resolved in accordance with the assurances given including for the issue of the heating permanently being on, and reminded the landlord that there was no hot water in the bath/shower and intermittent and/or very hot water in the other taps. The resident was ‘tired of being failed over and over again’ and said that continued temporary repairs and missed deadlines were not resolutions.

c.      Following the landlord’s visit on 25 March 2019, the resident requested the findings, the next steps and timeline.

  1. On 27 March 2019, the landlord raised a repair for the heating contractor to replace the HIU programmer but there is no completion date recorded on the repairs records. However, the works completion form of the same date states that a new time clock was fitted and on inspection it was found that the HIU had a fault with the bypass but it was still under warranty. The repair was passed back to the landlord to arrange a visit for the HIU manufacturer.
  2. There are no records after this until 29 July 2019. The resident telephoned the landlord to query why the complaint had not been escalated to stage three; the reason that the landlord did not carry out the action it was supposed to since the attendance of the heating contractor; and why she was still having intermittent heating and no water issues. On the same date, the landlord requested the resident to send the stage three escalation request to it again and it would then contact her within five working days to discuss. On 30 July 2019, the resident again sent an email to the landlord’s complaints team stating the heating and hot water issues had still not been resolved, monitored or followed through.
  3. On 31 July 2019, the resident reported that there was intermittent hot water since the last visit on 27 March 2019 and there was no hot water at all at the time, however despite a repair being raised there is no completion date recorded on the repairs records by the landlord. The landlord raised this with the heating contractor to attend on the same day to assess whether a temporary repair can be carried out because further works were needed following previous visits, which had not been organised yet. The works completion form (dated 31 July 2019) stated that it attended due to reports of no heating and hot water. The trapped air within the HIU was taken out and the actuators were found to be faulty. A quote was requested for the parts as the unit was now out of warranty. The contractor left the property with the heating and hot water working, but the resident states that the heating was not working after the visit.
  4. On 31 July 2019, in an internal email, the landlord said that the resident had not been well and only just felt well enough to discuss the matter again as it had caused her ‘great stress’. The resident believed that the next step was due to be a visit from the HIU manufacturer that was due to be organized after the heating contractor’s visit around 2 April. The landlord requested it to look into the matter and confirm the next steps which can be agreed with the resident to resolve the ongoing issue and complaint.
  5. On 1 August 2019, the landlord replied to the resident and apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s email of 25 March 2019 and said that it would review the escalation request and contact the resident by 9 August 2019. On the same date, in an internal email the landlord advised that a senior staff member would lead on resolving the issues.
  6. On 2 August 2019, the landlord advised the resident that it would attend with the HIU manufacturer on 8 August 2019 to rectify the faults with the heating and hot water. The record of the attendance on 8 August 2019 does not appear in the landlord’s repairs records however, the residents’ notes of the said date states ‘Some issues are still outstanding. I’ve not had confirmation if further works or investigations are required from the landlord, but heating and hot water is holding still’
  7. On 19 August 2019, there is a repair record for the block where a repair was raised to check the communal supply for ‘hot water issues’. There is no completion date recorded. However, the works completion form of the same date stated that it attended and checked the boilers and pumps. There was a fault with the pump and follow up work was required. On 21 August 2019, the heating contractor attended again and repaired the pump.
  8. The stage three panel meeting was initially arranged for 16 September 2019 however it was cancelled as the panel were unable to convene on the said date. It was re-arranged to 22 October 2019. The landlord submitted a panel report to the resident and the panel summarising the complaint. The panel was asked to decide whether the resident should be awarded further compensation in addition to that paid in October 2017. The report said the following:

a.     The complaint had not been handled well. The stage one response was issued three months later but the reasons for this are not known to the landlord; the stage two response contained ‘little or no details’; and the stage three escalation request was not dealt with until after the resident contacted the landlord again at the end of July 2019.

b.     In early August 2019, further works were carried out on the HIU’s and it was believed that all of the issues were now resolved, and that there were significant problems associated with the communal heating system that it took a long time to finally resolve.

c.      The landlord spoke to the resident before the report was completed. She advised that not being able to rely on consistent heating and hot water supply caused great stress particularly when on a number of occasions she was recovering from surgery or undergoing a medical procedure.

  1. In a note dated October 2019, the resident noted that it had been the ‘longest period heating and hot water issues have held’.
  2. On 23 October 2019, the stage three panel meeting was held with the resident. This investigation has not been provided with its minutes but following the meeting, on 7 November 2019 the resident submitted further information to the stage three panel. The evidence suggests that this included clarification on the panel report and post-panel meeting, the timeline document and the matters that remained outstanding.
  3. In relation to clarification on the panel report and post panel meeting, the resident said the following:

a.     The works were not planned or executed sufficiently, and opportunities for permanent resolution were missed repeatedly with temporary repairs being carried out. The resident had been chasing the repairs with deadlines repeatedly not adhered to and chasers were ignored. The panel report does not fully reflect the communications she logged with the landlord.

b.     The resident experienced constant systems outages and interrupted supply multiple times estimated at 65 times since 2012. Since August 2019, three months was ‘possibly the longest working supply period without intermittent and total outages to date’.

c.      The issue has had a ‘huge impact with ripple affect from the start of the tenancy’ on the resident including the time, financial, mental or physical affects. The resident had to take time off from work to accommodate repair appointments; her asthma exasperated due to cold air in the property; hot water bottle was used to keep warm; she was unable to adhere to medical advice because of outages. There was no offer of alternative accommodation due to the long outages and despite the impact highlighted on her health as she felt vulnerable.  

  1. In relation to the outstanding matters and those that had not been addressed after communications with the landlord, the resident detailed these in a document entitled ‘outstanding and or not answered’ however they contained different issues that are not part of the substantive complaint.
  2. On 22 November 2019, the landlord issued its stage three response to the resident in which it said the following:

a.     The communication from the landlord and its contractors was poor.

b.     In relation to the complaints process, there were overdue responses and a failure to offer any effective remedy hence it was escalated to stage three when the complaint was taken seriously. The panel apologised for the ‘poor handling’ of the complaints at stages one and two as it meant that the resident had to spend more time pursuing the complaints and a delay in providing a remedy, and recommended that the landlord discuss the panels comments with the landlord’s senior managers.

c.      The panel apologised for the ‘considerable distress and inconvenience’ the resident experienced particularly as she was unable to rely on a consistent supply of hot water due to her medical condition.

d.     The panel awarded £750 compensation for the impact the issues had on the resident and the delays involved including for the poor complaint handling.

  1. On 18 February 2020, the resident raised the complaint with this Service in which she said the following:

a.     The issues and complaints in relation to the heating and hot water started again since the installation of the HIU in June 2018. There was no long–term repair, and the repairs and services were not dealt with adequately or acknowledged in a timely manner.

b.     The formal complaints were not processed correctly and the compensation offered does not reflect the repeated errors, issues and the compounded errors caused over the years.

 

Assessment and findings

  1. The evidence indicates that the resident did not have full access to hot water and/or heating or only had intermittent access on many occasions between October 2017 and August 2019, primarily during 2018.
  2. The landlord’s repair records do not consistently detail the completion dates for the repairs or whether it completed repairs that had been reported to it by the resident. It also does not detail exactly how long the property was left without hot water and/or heating and the dates of the repairs in the works completion forms completed by its heating contractor do not accurately reflect the completion date recorded in the landlord’s repair records. Furthermore, there is a difference between the landlord’s records and the records provided by the resident in so far as she includes details of repairs that are not included in the repair records provided by the landlord.
  3. Whilst the repair records evidence that the landlord attempted to resolve the issues, there were many occasions when the resident had to chase it for an update to confirm when the repairs would be completed and it also left repairs incomplete. This left the resident without consistent supply of hot water and heating including for example for a period between November and December 2018 and March to July 2019 based on the evidence provided. The landlord failed to show that it had acknowledged that there was a wider issue with the communal boiler and HIU since its replacement from the old heating system. It carried out repairs which only  temporarily addressed the substantive issues and it was not until the stage two response that it said it would investigate the hot water and heating issues but failed to follow this through. It was on 1 August 2019 when it again undertook to resolve these issues when communication was initiated by the resident in relation to the outstanding repairs from March 2019. The landlord did not identify that the initial repairs it was carrying out were not solving the issue and therefore it missed the opportunity to consider whether to instruct a specialist to review the issues to come to a permanent solution earlier.
  4. It is evident that there were a number of problems encountered with the HIU resulting in issues with the supply of heating and hot water to the property. This caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the resident for example, as she had to attend the gym to shower, use hot water bottles, and not being able to rely on consistent hot water and heating before and after medical procedures.
  5. The landlord appropriately apologised and acknowledged the affect it had on the resident i.e. that it had caused her considerable distress and inconvenience. The panel, in acknowledging this, offered a sum of compensation of £750 (although it did not provide a breakdown of how much of this was apportioned for the poor complaint handling finding). The landlord acted in accordance with its compensation policy as it has provided an apology and according to the evidence, repaired the substantive issue with a more permanent solution and offered financial compensation to the resident.
  6. Although this amount is at the higher scale of the compensation recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which reflects the many occasions that the resident did not have access to hot water and/or heating, the landlord has failed to show that it provided the resident with suitable alternative heating or considered doing so. This would have been important in particular when there was a loss of heating and low temperature in the winter months of January and February 2019, and as the resident was unable to rely on consistent heating before and after her medical procedures. This was not appropriate and therefore it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide further compensation to the resident in recognising this service failure. Its compensation policy states that it is able to award discretionary payment for a service failure.
  7. In submitting the further information to the stage three panel after the meeting, the resident said that the landlord did not offer alternative accommodation because of the long outages and the impact it had on her health. There is no evidence in either the landlord’s or resident’s records that the resident informed the landlord that she was not able to live in the property and thereby requiring alternative accommodation, and neither was it raised in the formal complaints made to the landlord. The landlord was therefore not provided with the opportunity to consider whether the resident required alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The stage one complaint of 24 October 2018 did not relate to the substantive issues. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that it was responded to three months later although it was not able to establish the reason for this. The landlord is expected to maintain accurate records from which it can identify when it has responded to a formal complaint and the reason for any delay.  It did not do so in this complaint.
  2. The evidence indicates that it was not until 3 December 2018 that the resident raised a complaint about the hot water issue and then requested an escalation of it on 7, 12 and 14 December 2018. There is evidence to suggest that on 13 December 2018, the landlord forwarded the complaint to its gas team for a response within ten working days but there is no evidence to confirm which email it was referring to or evidence of a response within that timescale. On 3 January 2019, the resident requested an update on her complaint in relation to the heating issue. The resident continued to chase for a complaint response including requesting its escalation on 5, 8 and 17 January 2019. On 26 February 2019, the resident requested the stage one complaint of 24 October 2018 to be escalated to stage two. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this however it was following this escalation request that the landlord provided a brief response to the substantive issues which was provided with a delay.
  3. This was not appropriate complaint handling. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint that the resident made about the substantive issue on 3 December 2018 nor raise it at stage one of its complaints process in accordance with its complaints policy. Neither did it respond to the many chasers that the resident sent about it. The landlord instead briefly responded to the substantive issue at stage two but did not provide an explanation to address the complaint other than state that it would investigate and remedy it. It should have also explained its complaints process to the resident so that she was aware when a complaint could be escalated in view of her continued escalation requests. Whilst, the one-day delay in issuing the stage two response was not excessive, for which the landlord appropriately apologised at the time, it should have sent a holding letter to the resident with the reason for the delay and a new target response date in accordance with its complaints policy. The response at stage two was brief which the landlord appropriately acknowledged.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage three on 25 March 2019 and it was not until the she chased this with the landlord after over four months, on 29 July 2019, that it requested the escalation request to be re-sent to it. On 1 August 2019, the landlord appropriately apologised for not responding to the stage three escalation request but there is no evidence that it contacted the resident by 9 August 2019, as it had promised.
  5. It is evident that the landlord failed to appropriately apply its complaints policy throughout the period that the resident raised complaints with it including the lack of acknowledgement on a number of occasions or responding to it within the timeframes stated in the complaints policy. This caused considerable stress and inconvenience to the resident having to chase the complaints on many occasions. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged the complaint had not been handled well at all three stages including that there were overdue responses, and the affect this had on the resident and it causing a delay to the repairs being remedied. In doing so, the panel said that the compensation amount offered reflected the poor complaint handling and recommended that its comments are discussed with the landlord’s senior managers. This was reasonable as it showed insight and offered financial compensation for a service failure that it recognised.
  6. In relation to the other issues that the resident raised in the document she submitted to the panel after the meeting, it is evident from the final response that only three issues were discussed in the panel meeting including the substantive issue; the level of rent; and the electricity charges. The other issues in the document were not addressed by the panel. Whilst it was reasonable for the panel not to have addressed these other issues as there is no evidence that it was discussed at the meeting on 23 October 2019 or that it was given the opportunity to investigate them, it would have been reasonable for the panel to have advised the resident how to pursue these new issues with the landlord.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system resulting in the loss of heating and hot water. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately apologised and acknowledged that there was a delay in providing a remedy to the substantive issues which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident however it failed to show that it had offered or considered offering alternative heating to the resident due to the many occasions that the property had a loss of heating. It is therefore appropriate for the landlord to pay an increased sum of compensation to the resident to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by this.
  2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its service failure in effectively handling the complaint at all three stages and the overdue responses the resident was due. It offered financial compensation and showed insight by referring the service failure to be considered by the landlord’s senior staff. 

 

 

 

 

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation in the sum of £150 for its service failure in not providing alternative heating to the resident or considering whether it should have done so. 
  2. This order should be carried out within the next four weeks and confirmation of this provided to the Ombudsman.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £750 which it had offered at stage three of its complaints process, if it has not already done so.
  1. The landlord to carry out a self-assessment as set out in the Ombudsman’s New Complaints Handling Code (the Code) (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Complaint-Handling-Code.pdf) in relation to the following to ensure its compliance with the requirements of the Code:

a.     who is responsible in the team for dealing with a complaint (paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the Code);

b.     the complaints procedure (paragraphs 3.3 to 3.10 of the Code)

c.      the timescales for responses to a complaint (paragraphs 3.11 and 3.12 of the Code);

d.     communication with residents in relation to the complaint (paragraphs 3.13 to 3.19 of the Code)