One Housing Group Limited (202218055)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218055

One Housing Group Limited

1 September 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of a loss of the hot water supply within his property between June and July 2022.
2. reports of a loss of the heating and hot water supply within his property between October and December 2022.
3. associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of the heating and hot water supply within his property between October and December 2022.

Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority.

The resident’s reports of a loss of the hot water supply between October and December 2022, are the subject of another complaint raised to the landlord, as part of a group complaint by a number of residents in the building who were all affected. As such, the Ombudsman would require the consent of all the complainants to consider this complaint further. If the resident wishes to bring a group complaint to the Ombudsman, he should obtain written authority from all other complainants, confirming that they have nominated the resident to represent their concerns. Furthermore, we can only complete one investigation on behalf of a group of complainants where the complaint issue affects all complainants equally. For the avoidance of doubt, the term ‘equally’ means all complainants would need to have the same tenure type and pay the same service charges. This ensures that any redress which may be awarded is fair and that residents who may have been worse affected than others do not lose out on any additional compensation they may be entitled to if they complained individually.
This investigation has only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of the hot water supply within his own property between June and July 2022, and its response to his associated complaint.
The Ombudsman has also noted that in response to the group complaint, the landlord offered the resident compensation to cover the loss of hot water between June and July 2022, which is the same period being investigated by this Service. For the sake of clarity, the compensation offered by the landlord in response to the group complaint will not be considered when determining whether there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of the hot water supply between June and July 2022. However, the compensation offered by the landlord in response to the group complaint, will be noted in this report to place the complaint in its current context and to inform any orders and recommendations for the landlord to put things right for the resident.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a property situated in a purpose-built block of flats (the building), of which the landlord is the freeholder.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord identified a small leak to the pipework in the plant room in the resident’s building. Despite its contractor undertaking a temporary repair to contain the leak in the plant room, the situation became worse and on 12 June 2022, several properties within the building reported to the landlord a loss to their hot water supply. On 17 June 2022, the landlord notified all properties that a further repair to the pipework in the plant room had been completed and that the hot water supply had been restored to the building. However, on 19 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that his property was still without hot water. Between 20 June 2022 and 22 June 2022, the landlord notified all properties that it had identified a further issue to the communal boiler pump because of damage that had been caused from the initial leak in the plant room. The landlord advised that a replacement boiler pump had been ordered with an estimated delivery time of two weeks.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 20 June 2022. He stated that he was unhappy with the level of service provided by the landlord, as he had been left without a supply of hot water within his property for a week. He highlighted that his wife was pregnant and that they also had a young child. He complained that the landlord’s level of communication was poor due to sporadic, incorrect, or incomplete updates, and that there was a lack of urgency from the landlord to resolve the issue.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that over the past three weeks there had been an intermittent service to the hot water supply, despite several attempts by its contractor to temporarily repair the leak in the plant room. It explained that on 22 June 2022, in another attempt to restore hot water services, an airlock in the communal boiler system was removed by its contractors. This was followed by a door knocking exercise to all properties, advising them that when using their taps, they should only open them halfway due to reduced pressure. The landlord apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issue and reiterated that the replacement boiler pump was due to arrive by 8 July 2022.
On 10 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process, stating that the landlord’s stage one complaint response was inaccurate. He also questioned what preventative steps the landlord had taken since the initial leak in the plant room had been discovered, and why it did not properly consider protecting the boiler pump. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to compensate him for the issues highlighted.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord confirmed to all residents that the communal boiler pump had been replaced, and that the supply of hot water had been restored.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 8 September 2022. In this it apologised for the disruption caused and reiterated that significant repairs were required to the communal boiler system. It stated that its communication to all residents was frequent during the disruption but suggested that it could have arranged meetings in-person so that it could have explained in more detail what work was required and the challenges it had faced to obtain the relevant parts. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £333, consisting of:
1. £3 per day for loss of hot water between 12 June 2022 and 22 June 2022.
2. £50 under the right to repair policy.
3. £150 for inconvenience and disruption caused.
4. £100 for delays to progress the resident’s stage two complaint.
On 22 September 2022, the resident disputed the landlord’s calculations in awarding compensation, highlighting that on the day the communal boiler pump had been replaced, he had experienced a loss of both his cold and hot water supply. He also advised that issues with the hot water supply continued after the boiler pump had been replaced.
In a follow up response sent to the resident on 7 October 2022, the landlord apologised for the water outage that had occurred during its replacement of the boiler pump and acknowledged that it should have provided residents with advanced notice of the works. It explained that its contractors did not expect disruption to the cold-water supply, and that this was caused by the water booster pumps tripping out during the works. It also explained that not all issues reported after the boiler pump had been replaced were linked to the communal boiler system, and that individual properties had work carried out to restore their hot water services. The landlord increased its award of £3 per day for no hot water, to cover a total of 28 days, bringing the total offer of compensation to £384.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 November 2022, to ask for the complaint to be investigated. He told this Service that he was unhappy with the length of time taken by the landlord to restore the hot water supply within his property. He also advised that he was unhappy with the level of compensation that had been offered by the landlord for the inconvenience caused.

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that the landlord informed him that his complaint would remain open until all heating and hot water issues had been fully resolved within the building. As a result, the resident expected this service to consider the landlord’s response to his reports of a loss of the heating and hot water supply from June 2022, up until it provided its final offer of compensation in December 2022. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s concerns relating to the loss of the heating and hot water supply were ongoing, the matters investigated by the landlord at stage one and stage two of its complaint process were solely related to the outages that occurred in June and July 2022. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The issues which occurred after July 2022, happened after the end of the complaints procedure. Therefore, in line with the rules which govern our service, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint which completed the complaints procedure in September 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of the hot water supply within his property between June and July 2022.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for making sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, heating and sanitation, to multiple properties in the building are in working order.
In addition, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out the following categories for completing repairs:
1. emergency repair – aim to attend within three hours and complete and make safe the repair within 24 hours. Reports of no heating or hot water are only considered as emergency repairs between 1 October to 30 April.
2. routine repair – (non-emergency) attend within 7 days, complete within 28 days.
However, the policy also states that these timescales may be amended in cases where there is a requirement to order parts and materials, very specialist works are needed, or where additional works are identified when repairs are being conducted.
The landlord’s internal records confirm that when it initially identified a small leak to the pipework in the plant room, it arranged for a contractor to attend and contain the leak on the same day. This action was appropriate as it was in line with its obligations regarding fixtures and fittings, set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. At this stage, there are no records to suggest that the leak in the plant room caused any disruption to the resident’s hot water supply. However, the evidence shows that on 9 June 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the building to continue investigations into the leak in the plant room. Although the landlord’s contractor removed pipe lagging during this appointment, which the landlord told the resident, later contributed to the communal heating system’s outage, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord could have foreseen or prevented the communal heating system’s failure. The Ombudsman recognises that through constant use, water by nature erodes and wears down pipes over time, therefore, there will be occasions where pipe leaks occur, regardless of technology or fixtures. The landlord had a duty to investigate the leak in the plant room, and this included removing pipe lagging to access the pipes. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions in response to an identified leak to the pipework in the plant room, were necessary and appropriate.
Following the residents’ initial reports of the loss of the hot water supply, the landlord’s internal records show that its contractor made an out of hours visit to the building on the same day, and again two days later, to contain the leak in the plant room. As the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy considers a loss of hot water in June as a routine repair, its contractor’s attendance within 24-48 hours of the reports being raised was acceptable, as this was in line with its repair response timescales set out in the policy. Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord promptly ordered the required parts to repair the pipework in the plant room, and three days later the repair was completed, which was also in line with the landlord’s response timescales set out in its repair and maintenance policy. The evidence shows that subsequent outages to the hot water supply, until the communal boiler pump was replaced, were because of the landlord waiting on a bespoke communal boiler pump that had a delivery time of two weeks. Although this wait would have been understandably inconvenient for the resident, the Ombudsman notes that the need for a replacement communal boiler pump was only identified following repairs to the pipework in the plant room. This would constitute as an unforeseen or special circumstance, and in view of this, the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall, in line with its obligations, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the repairs required to the communal heating system were undertaken as soon as reasonably possible.
Regarding the landlord’s communication, its internal records show that during the first two weeks of the communal heating system breaking down, it sent updates to all residents on 13 June, 15 June, 17 June, 20 June, 21 June, 22 June, and 13 July 2022, keeping them informed of the diagnosed faults to the pipework in the plant room and subsequently the communal boiler pump. The Ombudsman notes that the updates gave conflicting information, due to its contractor undertaking a temporary repair, only for the communal heating system to break down shortly afterwards. This resulted in residents being informed that their hot water supply had been restored when it had not been. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this would have caused a great deal of frustration to the resident, there is no evidence that the cause of the repeated communal heating system failure was in the landlord’s control. Therefore, in the circumstances, the landlord’s attempts at managing resident expectations during this period were reasonable. The evidence shows that its communication was frequent which demonstrated that it was treating the issue as a priority. Its communication also outlined anticipated dates of repair, accurately reflected the situation at hand, and invited residents to get in touch if they required assistance.
The resident has advised this service that on various occasions he (along with other residents) found it difficult to contact the landlord’s out of hours service to report ongoing issues with the hot water supply, and to request support. Furthermore, when he did get through, he was given incorrect or unhelpful information. In response to this service’s enquiries, the landlord has provided a record of the calls made to, or received from the resident, from June 2022 onwards. While there are records to demonstrate that telephone discussions between the resident and landlord took place during office hours, there are no records to indicate that the resident telephoned the out of hours service. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident may have experienced problems when contacting the landlord’s out of hours service, however, it is important to highlight that as an impartial service, we can only base decisions on the evidence available. Where there is insufficient documentary evidence to support what has been said, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was a failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right its failure. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot comment on matters relating to other residents. This is because this Service expects landlords to consider each case under its own circumstances and merits, and because we can only consider the evidence available to draw fair and reasonable conclusions. We have not seen any evidence to confirm the exact circumstances of other residents’ difficulties contacting the landlord, and therefore we cannot comment on this further. The other residents involved can contact the Ombudsman separately if they want us to investigate any complaints they have made through the landlord’s process about the issues with the heating system.
The resident has also told this service that the landlord did not visit his property to verify if his hot water supply had been restored, and consequently, he continued to experience an intermittent and inefficient hot water service into September 2022. However, from the evidence, it appears as though the resident did not raise any further reports regarding issues with his hot water supply, after the communal boiler pump had been replaced on 13 July 2022. Additionally, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that after the communal boiler pump had been replaced, the landlord was aware of any further issues to the communal heating system which would have caused a loss to the resident’s hot water supply. It is noted in its follow-up response, the landlord explained to the resident that after the replacement of the communal boiler pump, it was aware of some properties reporting issues with their hot water supply, however, these reports were investigated individually and were not linked to the communal boiler system. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to monitor the communal heating system by arranging an engineer inspection on 26 July 2022, and again on 10 August 2022. In the absence of evidence that the resident raised further reports to the landlord of a loss of his hot water supply, the Ombudsman cannot conduct an assessment on the landlord’s actions or inactions in response to this claim.
That said, following replacement of the communal boiler pump, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord also had a responsibility to proactively engage with the resident. The landlord should have conducted a post inspection to the resident’s property, to satisfy itself, and the resident, (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that his hot water supply had been restored. Although the landlord’s internal records indicate that its contractor conducted a door knocking exercise on a sample of properties, who all confirmed the hot water had been restored, this did not include the resident’s property. Given the resident had an open formal complaint at the time, for completeness, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included the resident within this check. Additionally, in the weeks after the communal boiler pump had been replaced, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have appointed a single point of contact to liaise with affected residents, its contractors, and all key stakeholders. This would have enabled the landlord to gather feedback and relay continuous real-time information, putting it in a position to offer relevant advice and support to households that may have been still experiencing issues. Considering this, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that after the communal boiler pump had been replaced, the landlord’s actions went far enough, to ensure that the hot water supply had been restored to the resident’s property, which constitutes a service shortcoming by the landlord.
It is not disputed by the landlord that the length of time taken to repair the communal heating system would have caused distress to the resident. It also offered compensation for the loss of the hot water supply, and for the outage of the cold-water supply that occurred on the day the replacement pump had been fitted. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the inconvenience the water outages had caused to the resident. Its compensation policy states that it will offer a payment of up to £250 for delays and distress where the landlord had partial responsibility for the issue, which caused a medium or high impact to the resident. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord made an offer of £150 compensation to the resident in recognition of these factors. It also decided to award the resident an additional £50 under the right to repair, a payment that does not ordinarily apply to leaseholders, as set out in its compensation policy. Regarding its compensation offer of £3 per day for loss of hot water, the Ombudsman has calculated 32 days between the initial reports of the loss of the water supply to when the communal boiler pump was replaced. It is noted that there were a few days within this period that the water had been temporarily restored, therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord made an offer of £84 compensation to cover 28 days.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £100 in cases where we identify a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery. In this case, while the loss of hot water for 28 to 30 days is a protracted period which would have caused significant inconvenience, the repair required to remedy the fault to the system was extensive as it involved repair of pipework and replacement of the boiler pump. The Ombudsman understands there will be cases, which due to the nature, complexity or extent of the work needed, cannot be completed within a short timeframe, and therefore time taken to remedy an issue is not always indicative of a severe service failure by the landlord and may be beyond its control. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of £284 compensation for this element of the complaint was proportionate redress to put things right for the resident. Its offer of compensation was in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not made an offer. This is inclusive of the identified failings relating to the landlord not conducting a post-inspection of the resident’s property or appointing a single point of contact. Finally, it was appropriate that the landlord looked to learn from its errors by explaining how it would improve on its communication in the future.
In view of the above points, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of the heating and hot water supply during June and July 2022, as reasonably resolved.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide the resident with a stage two response within 20 working days. The landlord states within its complaints policy that if a delay to issuing its response is likely to occur, it will contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and a clear timescale of when the response will be received.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 June 2022, and the stage one complaint response was sent on 5 July 2022. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage one complaint response was sent slightly outside of its complaints policy timescales, however, at this stage, the delay did not appear to have a significant impact on the resident. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 10 July 2022, and there was a delay of almost nine weeks for the landlord to issue its stage two complaint response to the resident. While the Ombudsman considers this delay to be inappropriate, it is recognised that when the resident made the landlord aware of the delay, the landlord called him to apologise and explain that his escalation request had been missed. The resident and landlord agreed that the landlord would provide a stage two complaint response by 7 September 2022, if it updated the resident on the status of its complaint investigation by 25 August 2022. The landlord’s actions here demonstrated that it was in acknowledgement of its error. It quickly took steps to provide the resident with a revised response date, which was in line with its responsibility set out in its complaints policy.
However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an update by 25 August 2022, as agreed. This was inappropriate, given the fact it had already missed its original deadline for response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is of paramount importance that when a landlord pledges to take a specific action, this is followed through to conclusion. A failure to do so erodes the resident and landlord relationship and may result in further formal complaints.
The Ombudsman notes that in the resident’s stage one complaint, he highlighted that his wife was pregnant and that they had a young child within the household. The Ombudsman has seen no record of the landlord acknowledging the circumstances of the resident’s household in either of its complaint responses. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have recognised the fact that some residents’ circumstances mean they are more affected by an incident than others. As the landlord did not address this point, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord took this aggravating factor into consideration when investigating the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this oversight.
Additionally, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s follow-on response to its stage two complaint response, an example of poor complaint handling. Its failure to address the cold-water outage on the day the communal boiler pump was replaced, meant that the resident was provided with an incomplete stage two complaint response, and was made to wait a further 21 days before all his concerns were addressed. The Ombudsman would like to remind the landlord that responding to its residents’ complaints in full is essential, as not only do incomplete responses create unnecessary delays, but they also allow for further complaints to be incorporated into the process, which prolong and divert a resolution to the original complaint. As such, the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this failing. The total compensation for complaint handling errors will be £100.
In conclusion, the landlord’s failure to address the personal circumstances within the resident’s household, and its failure to address his stage two complaint response in full, amounts to service failure. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident a further £100, bringing the total to £200 for the delay to progress his stage two complaint response and for the failures set out above. This amount is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £100 which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer prior to this service’s involvement which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of the heating and hot water supply within his property between June and July 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. This amount is in addition to the £100 compensation it had already agreed to pay for the delay in progressing the resident’s stage two complaint which should also be paid, unless it has been paid already.