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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202218569)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218569

Swan Housing Association Limited

15 April 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns about her boiler.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord has noted that the resident is vulnerable and suffers from mobility issues.
  2. The property is a two-bedroomed house.
  3. The resident had a new boiler installed in February 2020. The installation and subsequent issues were dealt with in a previous complaint which concluded with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in December 2020. Following this, the resident has continued to report issues with the boiler and the heating system. These have included pressure issues, failure to heat correctly, and excessive noise which has caused disturbance.
  4. The landlord throughout this time has undertaken several repairs and adjustments to the system whilst also having independent surveys of the system carried out in January 2022 and July 2022. A further inspection was undertaken by the resident’s councillor and a representative from the local council’s Public Health and Protection team. These found no significant issues with the boiler or the heating system. Following an independent survey, the landlord carried out several minor adjustments in an attempt to reduce the noise of the heating system. The resident has continued however to report concerns regarding this.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to raise a new complaint on 21 November 2022. She was unhappy with the boiler issues which had been ongoing for 40 months. She attributed this to the poor installation. She said this had been having a negative effect on her physical and mental health. This complaint was forwarded to the landlord the following day. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2022. It awarded the resident £500 compensation for the level of stress, anxiety, frustration, and inconvenience. It said however that it found no failure of service in its actions. It confirmed that its inspections found no major issues with the system. It also confirmed that it had visited with the resident’s councillor on 17 October 2022 and again on 22 November 2022 to bleed all the radiators. It said in all instances it found the whole system working correctly. It said it would not consider a boiler replacement as the boiler was less than 3 years old and various reports had found no issues with the system.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s failings and felt works had continually been carried out to a poor standard. She was dissatisfied that the works recommended by the independent surveyor had not stopped the noise and pressure issues. She also felt that the pipe rerouting and the moving of radiators had caused the property to become colder.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 March 2023. It again said that it had undertaken all of the works the resident had requested and felt that it had worked hard to ensure she had felt listened to, heard, and supported. It reiterated that having investigated the cause of the noise, it appeared to be due to water moving through the pipes. It said it would not increase its offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the situation. It also said that when moving the radiators, it had undertaken a heat calculation and that if the resident felt the house was too cold, it could install new larger radiators at her convenience.
  8. The resident asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint on 8 March 2023. She highlighted that the boiler issues had been ongoing for a significant period of time and that she felt the landlord had been deliberately obstructive with the complaint and failed to answer questions. The resident said to resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to provide a combi-boiler, award £5,000 compensation, to add another radiator in the living room, and to move the radiator in the second bedroom.

Assessment and findings

The scope of our investigation

  1. The Ombudsman expects complaints to be made within a reasonable period of time, usually 12 months from the event occurring. Any events that occurred more than 12 months before the complaint have not therefore been considered in detail as part of this complaint. This investigation will not comment on anything which was considered as part of a previous complaint.
  2. The resident has said that this situation has had a negative effect on her health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her boiler

  1. The landlord’s repair information on its website states that it will complete all standard repairs within 15 days of the issue being reported. For larger planned works, the landlord says it will usually carry these out within 45 days.
  2. Throughout the course of the complaint, the landlord has been responsive to the resident’s reports of any issues with the performance of her boiler. On the whole, it attended to any issues within the timescales specified in its repairs policy and made good any issues that the resident was having. The actions it undertook throughout this period included draining the radiators of any excess air and adjusting the pressure in the system.
  3. A number of inspections of the heating system have taken place. The landlord itself has inspected, an independent survey was undertaken, and a joint visit between the landlord’s councillor and a gas safety engineer was completed. None of these have found any significant problems with the boiler, nor did these find issues with the amount of noise the system was producing. The landlord nonetheless acted on any recommendations given to try and nullify any noise the resident was experiencing.
  4. The independent inspection of the boiler and heating system did provide some recommendations about ways to possibly reduce noise from the system. This included replacing all radiator valves, installing additional automatic air vents, and adding noise reducing chemicals to the system. The landlord’s completion of these represented good practice. Following this, the landlord instructed a follow-up visit which again found no evident noise to be audible. Following this, it was agreed that the landlord would attend to move newly installed automatic air vents.
  5. The landlord has also said that, whilst it feels it has taken all of the action it can, if the resident wished to instruct a new independent inspection of the system, it would honour any recommendations made in this. The landlord also said that if the resident feels the property is too cold, it would be willing to increase the size of radiators at her convenience. These options again represented good practice from the landlord and demonstrated its commitment to resolution focused action.
  6. The landlord supported the resident through what has been a distressing time for her. It referred the resident to the necessary support services, offering her weekly welfare checks with a neighbourhood officer until May 2022. These continued until it was agreed that the resident did not need any additional support at the time. The landlord resumed undertaking these in November 2022.
  7. Throughout the complaint, the landlord communicated fairly with the resident. Whilst there may have been some occasional delays in providing responses, the landlord’s responses were generally fair in content and in tone. The communication between both parties was frequent.
  8. The landlord also provided the resident with information on the noise app in order to record the noise she was experiencing. This would allow the landlord to monitor the noise occurring from the heating system. The resident did ask the landlord if there was any equipment that could be installed in order to record 24 hours a day. The landlord investigated and internally discussed the possibility of installing the equipment but found in this instance, this would not be possible due to cost-related concerns. It is not clear if the resident has submitted any noise recordings to the landlord from the noise app.
  9. Whilst the situation undoubtedly was distressing for the resident, the landlord has done everything available to it to investigate and rectify these concerns. Although the resident has indicated she would like for the boiler to be replaced, the landlord has not seen any reports from its contractors or independent surveyor that the boiler is faulty or creating excessive noise. This is a fair decision from the landlord.
  10. The landlord provided the resident with £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. It said however that when investigating its actions, it had not found any service failure. However, in its submission to the Ombudsman, it has mentioned that it upheld the complaint in ‘acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience she had incurred during multiple visits…and the numerous emails and phone calls made’. The landlord’s recognition of this and compensation represented reasonable redress. There were instances where the landlord appeared to be slow following up on making good any aesthetic issues caused by work throughout the course of the complaint. This amount therefore represents a fair amount of redress for these delays and is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a failure that adversely affected a resident.
  11. Overall, the landlord responded to reports from the resident within a reasonable time period, undertook the necessary inspections and performed any works that were recommended as a result of this. It has also provided options moving forward. The landlord undertook the actions that the Ombudsman would expect it to when investigating such reports. Its actions in providing compensation for the distress and inconvenience of the situation represented reasonable redress from the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. At stage 1 of its complaint procedure, it told the resident it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints procedure, it told the resident it would provide its response within 20 working days. It also states that there may be instances where it needs additional time to provide its response. In these instances, it says it will inform residents of this.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2022 after receiving this on 22 November 2022. This response took 18 working days, outside of the 10 working days specified in its policy. However, the landlord did request an extension from the resident for an additional 10 days, agreeing to provide its complaint response by 19 December 2022.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord requested extensions to provide its response on 2 occasions. These occurred on 16 February 2023, and 2 March 2023. At stage 2, the resident had provided a significant amount of information and raised issues about a number of different events. It was fair from the landlord to take additional time to consider these, and to ensure that it had considered all of the aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were fair, and resolution focused. They clearly set out the landlord’s position on the issues and provided options for the resident moving forwards.
  5. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord kept the resident informed about its timescales and reduced the amount of distress and inconvenience these caused by doing so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already paid this amount, the landlord should re-offer the resident the £500 compensation it awarded for distress and inconvenience through its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord should also re-offer the resident the opportunity to discuss the need for additional heating if she feels the property remains too cold.