Stonewater Limited (202301443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301443

Stonewater Limited

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system and its subsequent handling of repairs;
2. complaint handling, including the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 1985. She lives in the property with her husband, who is known by the landlord to have physical health vulnerabilities affecting his mobility. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built 2-storey retirement living scheme (referred to in this report as ‘Scheme A’) consisting of 35 flats. Scheme A is heated by a communal heating system.
The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s responsibilities include keeping in good repair and in working order the installations for the supply of space and water heating. It will also keep the common parts of Scheme A, including communal amenities and facilities, in reasonable repair and safe for use. The tenant’s responsibilities include advising the landlord of any defect which it is obliged to repair.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy divides repairs into 3 categories: emergency, non-emergency, and major. The landlord will complete emergency repairs – defined as “those which pose a threat to the safety of our customers, their homes or their communities” – within 24 hours. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days, and major repairs within 42 days. The repairs policy notes that the landlord’s responsive repairs service is delivered by third party supply chain partners, and that the landlord will monitor the performance of these partners.
The landlord’s repairs guide for customers, titled “Getting your Home Repaired” and dated May 2017, provides slightly different information. It states that repairs are categorised as ‘high priority’ or ‘by appointment’. High priority repairs, such as “complete failure of heating or hot water to property occupied by elderly or vulnerable tenants”, are made safe within 4 hours and repaired (either temporarily or permanently) within 24 hours. No target timescale is provided for appointed repairs. The repairs guide further states that repairs are prioritised depending on the seriousness of the defect, the impact it will have on the household, and the potential damage to the property. Customers living in retirement living accommodation are given priority appointment times.
The landlord’s maintenance of heating systems and appliances policy states that the landlord will ensure all heating systems, appliances, equipment and flues are maintained in a safe condition and serviced annually in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions by trained and suitably qualified contractors. It will respond to breakdowns and repairs to heating systems and appliances forming part of its properties.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process (with the option of a further review by its independent customer complaints panel). Its complaints, compliments and comments policy dated September 2022 states that it will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 2 working days of receipt. It will then respond within 10 working days at stages 1 and 2. If it is unable to respond within 10 working days, it will notify the complainant of its anticipated response timeframe and agree any extension beyond 20 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be investigated by a senior manager at the request of the complainant. Some of the above details have since been amended in the updated complaints policy published in September 2023.
The landlord’s compensation policy (dated June 2022) states that where its service falls below its published standards, the landlord may pay compensation to cover loss, inconvenience caused, and/or as a gesture of goodwill. Service failure includes the service provided by its contractors. Payments for loss of room use are calculated as a percentage of rent over the relevant period. When customers have been provided with alternative sources of heating and/or hot water, they will be compensated at a rate of £7.50 per day for the additional running costs. The landlord will not compensate for loss of earnings.
The landlord’s updated compensation policy (dated September 2023) clarifies that the landlord will take responsibility for any detriment caused to an individual or their property by its contractors. It will also ensure that compensation payments are fair and proportionate, considering each case on its own merits and taking a flexible and common sense approach. Discretionary compensation may be paid for delays in undertaking repairs, temporary loss of amenity, failure to meet target response times, loss of use of part of the property, poor complaint handling, or unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.

Summary of events

The landlord replaced the boilers at Scheme A in 2016. Prior to the events of this investigation, the resident reported issues with her heating on numerous occasions between January 2018 and December 2021.
On 19 January 2023 the resident made a further report that her radiator was not working. An appointment was booked for the landlord’s contractor to visit on 1 February 2023, but it did not attend or inform the resident of the cancellation. The contractor then visited Scheme A on 2 and 3 February 2023 to complete repairs, but its engineer went to the central plant room and not the resident’s property. They recommended the installation of additional automatic air vents (AAVs) on the distribution pipework as they believed the system design was creating airlocks.
The resident contacted the landlord about its contractor’s missed appointment on 6 February 2023. She said the landlord’s diary system showed no access could be gained on 1 February 2023, but she had taken time off work in order to be at home all day. She had also called to chase the appointment when nobody arrived. The landlord liaised with the contractor which said it would escalate the issue to a manager, and they would contact the resident as soon as possible.
Having received no contact, the resident complained to the landlord on 7 February 2023, stating that:
1. After she reported a heating issue, the landlord’s contractor missed an appointment but said it had attended.
2. She had since contacted the landlord twice to get an update. The contractor told the landlord it would call her to get the appointment rebooked, but this had not happened.
3. The outcomes she sought were: improved communication; compensation for having to spend 2 and a half hours on the phone; and “to get to the bottom of why [the contractor] keeps lying about attending”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 February 2023 and advised that it aimed to respond by 22 February 2023. However, it noted that if it needed longer then it would let the resident know and provide a new target date.
The same day (9 February 2023), the landlord requested information from its contractor regarding the resident’s report of heating issues. The contractor apologised for its delayed reply on 17 February 2023 and provided a more detailed update on 20 February 2023.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it needed more time to respond to her complaint. It said it would respond by 8 March 2023. It then issued its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, stating:
1. It was sorry the resident had been having difficulty with the heating in her home and that she had felt the need to make a complaint.
2. It could see she contacted it on 19 January 2023 to report issues with her radiator. An appointment was made on 1 February 2023 which unfortunately its contractor’s engineer failed to attend. The contractor attempted to contact the resident and left voicemail messages on 2, 3, 6 and 8 February 2023 to try to rebook the appointment. It understood the appointment took place on 20 February 2023 and the repair was completed.
3. It understood how frustrating it was for contractors to miss appointments. Unfortunately, depending on demand, there was sometimes a need to reprioritise labour to emergencies, which meant that it let some customers down. However, the contractor should have informed the resident as soon as it became aware it would not be attending, and it apologised for this.
4. As the contractor went on to attend and undertake the necessary works within 28 days (in accordance with its target for non-emergency works of this nature), no service failure had occurred.
5. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered the resident a £75 gift card in recognition of the frustration she had experienced.
On 10 March 2023 the resident verbally requested escalation of her complaint. According to the resident, the landlord confirmed that it would investigate her complaint at stage 2 and that she would receive a call within 48 hours.
Also on this date (10 March 2023), the landlord’s contractor visited to investigate the heating issue. It then discussed the resident’s complaint internally and noted that the heating issues at Scheme A had been highlighted in May 2021. The correspondence stated that at this time, the contractor had “asserted that [the landlord] must carry out works to all of the domestic pipework in every flat if [it] wanted the issues here to be resolved”. However, it appeared that nothing came of this. The contractor said that as a result of the continued issues, “every flat is suffering” and “we cannot keep attending this site for the same issues if we cannot get the remedial works done”. The landlord received a quotation for installation of AAVs on 13 March 2023 and raised a works order the same day.
Having received no call from the landlord, the resident repeated her escalation request in writing on 16 March 2023. She said she felt the stage 1 response contained “lots of errors”. In particular, she noted that she did not receive a voicemail from the contractor as the response said; if she had, she would have called back. The stage 1 response also said the heating issue was resolved, but it persisted. The resident asked for a call from the landlord’s stage 2 responder, as the stage 1 responder had not called her and she felt this was partly responsible for the inaccuracies in the stage 1 response.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her over the phone. It subsequently documented that the resolutions she sought were for her heating to be permanently fixed, and reimbursement for days she had taken off work and time spent on phone calls. It confirmed that its investigation would consider the outstanding heating repair, its poor communication, reimbursement, and inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. It said it aimed to respond by 11 April 2023.
The landlord also requested further information from its contractor on 28 March 2023. This was provided on 5 April 2023. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023, stating:
1. It apologised for any inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. The response was based on information received from its contractor. On further investigation it had found some inaccuracies, and would address these.
2. Its contractor had reported that an engineer failed to gain access on 1 February 2023. It now believed this was not the case as a member of its customer service centre chased the repair and was advised it was still with the contractor’s planning team. There was no mention of a missed appointment on 1 February 2023 or any follow-up calls.
3. A further appointment for 2 February 2023 was raised on its contractor’s system. However, from new information received, it appeared the engineer attended the central plant room and not the resident’s property.
4. An appointment was then arranged for 23 February 2023 for an engineer to investigate the issues with the resident’s central heating. This was cancelled at short notice as the attending engineer requested the support of a supervisor with experience of the heat interface unit (HIU) installed in the property. Unfortunately this was not rescheduled until 10 March 2023.
5. Its contractor had made recommendations on 13 March 2023 and a works order was raised the same day with a 28-day completion target. The contractor would contact the resident to confirm a date for the work. This would complete the heating repair.
6. To ensure there were no issues in future, its head of gas safety and water hygiene had engaged its mechanical and electrical consultants to undertake an appraisal of the heating and hot water system at Scheme A. This would include a representative sample of the flats, and it would like to include the resident’s property in the evaluation with her permission. It provided details of the main point of contact for the project and any remedial work generated.
7. It again sincerely apologised for the delayed heating repair and the inaccuracy of its stage 1 response.
8. It understood the resident had requested compensation for having to take time off work. However, in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance, it was unable to offer this. Instead it offered compensation of £225, comprising:
  1. £75 for its delays in scheduling the heating works;
  2. £75 for its poor communication;
  3. £75 for the inaccuracies in its stage 1 response.
9. The resident had the option of requesting a review of her complaint by its customer complaints panel, or could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident did not request a review by the customer complaints panel and referred her complaint to this Service on 12 April 2023.

Post complaint

On 23 May 2023 the landlord followed up with its contractor regarding a works order that had been raised on 28 April 2023. This involved isolating the valves above the HIU, draining down the central heating circuit, teeing into the drops to each radiator, and fitting an end feed.
On 14 June 2023 works were due to be completed at the resident’s property by a builder and engineer. The builder attended, but the contractor’s engineer did not. The resident was subsequently informed by the builder that the job had been cancelled. After receiving a call from the resident, the landlord asked its contractor what had happened. The contractor advised that it was awaiting confirmation that the necessary parts were available. The landlord then assisted the contractor in rebooking the appointment with the resident for 16 June 2023. During the appointment, the contractor installed AAVs on the resident’s radiators to remove trapped air from high level pipework. This was effective in removing air from the system but did not fully resolve the issue.
On 28 June 2023 the resident reported continued concerns regarding the reliability of the boilers, as they had failed 5 times in the past 7 days. She said that despite the contractor’s assurances, an engineer had not attended. The landlord confirmed that an engineer was en route and that it had put measures in place for an alternative heating solution.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord’s subcontractor conducted a site survey and produced a ‘risk and method statement’ (RAMS) for works relating to the supply, installation and commissioning of a temporary plant. The installation was carried out on 30 June 2023. The temporary plant was located outside Scheme A in the car park.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord conducted a joint visit to Scheme A with its contractor and consultant. It met with residents of Scheme A to listen to their concerns about the location of the temporary plant and the long-term plan for the boilers. The consultant also carried out an inspection. The resulting report stated that:
1. Residents of Scheme A had made many reports of heating issues since the installation of the current permanent system in 2016. They stated that they experienced problems with the heating circuit regularly.
2. The parts for the existing boilers were difficult to obtain and had a long lead-in time. Replacement parts also did not offer a long-term solution. The consultant therefore recommended replacing the boilers with new ones that had a stainless steel heat exchanger. It suggested possible manufacturers.
3. The new boilers should include a new flue and frame kit to suit the installation. For a longer-term solution the consultant also recommended hydraulic separation between the heating circuit and the boilers to extend the life of the system. It further recommended that:
  1. The main distribution pipework should be rebalanced to ensure the correct flow rates and temperatures were being achieved at the HIU within the properties;
  2. The HIU safety pipework should be disconnected from the secondary return, connected to a tundish and run to drain according to the manufacturer’s instructions;
  3. The external vent on the pipework should be disconnected and removed, and the wall made good;
  4. The HIUs should be serviced, strainers cleaned and set up correctly in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidance;
  5. Radiators within the flats should be vented and left in full working order.
4. A heat loss calculation had been carried out in the resident’s living room. While the radiator theoretically met the requirements for the space, due to the nature of the space and number of external walls and windows, it recommended installation of an additional radiator in the dining area.
On 14 August 2023 the temporary plant at Scheme A broke down. This was the first of 6 breakdowns. The landlord later found that the issue was the temporary boiler ‘locking out’, running for a period of time, then failing again intermittently. On 28 and 29 August 2023 the resident reported a fault with her heating and hot water, and the landlord’s contractor said it would attend on 30 August 2023 to replace the pressurisation which had displayed a warning notice.
On 18 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about repairs that remained outstanding following the installation of the AAVs, and to enquire about the installation of her additional radiator. The landlord raised this with its contractor and told the resident its contractor would contact her. It received recommendations from its consultant regarding replacement boilers and additional remedial work the same day, and queried some aspects of these.
On or around 3 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord when the heating repairs would be completed in her property. The landlord enquired internally regarding this and requested a quote for installation of an additional radiator in her dining room, which it noted had been discussed in July 2023 but not progressed.
On 18 and 19 October 2023 the resident reported further failures of the temporary plant. The landlord arranged for its contractor to restore the plant to working order on both occasions. Also on 19 October 2023, the contractor identified a fault that was causing circulation issues in the resident’s property. The fault related to 2 domestic heat exchangers in the HIU, which were removed and chemically cleaned before being reinstalled. This improved the central heating to the property. The landlord’s contractor went on to provide quotes for repairs at Scheme A on 2 November 2023.
On 15 November 2023 there was a “significant outage” when the temporary plant failed. This resulted in a loss of heating supply to Scheme A overnight.
On 16 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor replaced the temporary plant with new boilers. The contractor confirmed to the landlord that Scheme A was running on the new boilers, although further works were required to commission them on 17 November 2023. It apologised for recent outages due to failure of the temporary plant, citing unforeseen issues with its subcontractor. It accepted that it and its subcontractor “could have done more to reduce the impact on the resident” and that it would be “looking into this in depth”. On 29 November 2023 the contractor provided a detailed history and assessment of the heating issues at Scheme A. It proposed commencing water treatment and heat exchanger replacement works on 11 December 2023 with the expectation of completing these by 20 December 2023.
On 30 November 2023 the resident told this Service that, 11 months after reporting the heating problem, she had been offered no further compensation for the delay, stress caused, and phone calls she had had to make. She felt this was “unfair and unjust”.
The landlord has since confirmed that it replaced the heat exchangers on 11 December 2023, and made a further visit to alter the pressure relief valve (PRV) outlet and install a discharge bottle on 15 January 2024. The latter repair did not affect the functionality of the heating system. At the time of the latest update on 8 April 2024, no further heating issues had been reported.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has made previous reports and complaints to the landlord, and may have made more recent complaints. For clarity, the current investigation relates to the complaint she made on 7 February 2023 which concerned heating issues from 19 January 2023 onwards. Any other complaints may be referred to this Service separately once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Heating system repairs

There is evidence within the documentation provided that the landlord’s contractor recommended large-scale works to the heating system at Scheme A in 2021. While this predates the period of the current investigation, the landlord would have been aware of this recommendation at the time of the resident’s report of heating issues on 19 January 2023. It would also have had knowledge of the previous repairs reported by residents. Since it apparently elected to complete smaller repairs on an as-needed basis rather than overhaul the system, it should have made adequate provision for completing such repairs in accordance with its repairs policy. This was particularly important given that Scheme A is a retirement scheme, occupied by residents aged over 55 who may be vulnerable. Relatedly, it was misleading of the landlord (in its response to this Service’s information request) to describe the resident’s accommodation as a “general needs” flat for “normal rented customers”, rather than a flat in a retirement scheme.
The Ombudsman accepts that the issues affecting the heating system were complex and challenging for the landlord’s contractor to diagnose. In such circumstances – involving periods of monitoring, a ‘process of elimination’ approach, and input by numerous contractors and subcontractors – it may not be possible for a landlord to find a permanent solution within its maximum repair timeframe (in this case, 42 days). On several occasions repairs were completed which meant the system was working at the time of the appointment, but later failed again. There is evidence that the contractor reattended promptly when a failure recurred (for instance, on 3 February 2023 and 19 October 2023) and acted on the recommendations of its qualified contractors and consultant, which was appropriate. However, there were also some unreasonable delays which resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. These are considered in more detail below.
When the resident reported a heating issue on 19 January 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a non-emergency repair as she said the radiators were warm but not hot. The repair logs indicate that the job was appointed 4 working days later on 25 January 2023, and due to take place the following week. The appointment on 1 February 2023 was agreed with the resident, who booked time off work. It is unclear why this appointment was cancelled, and the contractor’s failure to inform the resident of the cancellation was unsatisfactory. The repair log entry for 1 February 2023 states “[contractor] not attended they will contact tenant”. The landlord was therefore under the impression that the contractor would let the resident know it would not be attending, and had no reason to take action itself. Nevertheless, it was ultimately responsible for its contractor’s actions. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the issue when it became aware of it, relay information provided by the contractor to the resident, and carry out further investigation when the resident disputed the contractor’s version of events. When it became apparent that there had been a miscommunication, the landlord rightly apologised to the resident, although it should also have considered compensation as discussed below.
The contractor’s initial attendance following the resident’s report was on 2 February 2023. This was 10 working days after the report was made, and therefore satisfactory. However, due to a misunderstanding the contractor attended the communal area of Scheme A (where the boilers were located) rather than the resident’s property. The landlord later explained that this was due to the job card identifying the heating system as communal, which was understandable, though frustrating for the resident. The visit also took place in the evening, finishing after 9pm, and so the engineer’s wish to avoid disturbing the resident is appreciated. Clearer information on the repair records could have resulted in the resident being visited at the start of the appointment on 2 February 2023, or at least updated on 3 February 2023. While the original job would have been logged on 25 January 2023, before any communication issues were identified, the landlord and/or contractor missed an opportunity to update the job following non-attendance and contact with the resident on 1 February 2023. It appears learning was taken from this, as subsequent jobs raised at the property contained prominent instructions such as “DO NOT MOVE” and “MUST GO AHEAD”. This demonstrates a solution-focused approach.
The landlord and contractor could not have foreseen that the temporary fix made on 2 February 2023 would not hold overnight, and as mentioned above, reattendance on 3 February 2023 was prompt. Since heating and hot water were restored to Scheme A on 3 February 2023, the 20-day interval before the next appointment on 23 February 2023 was reasonable. It is unclear whether this appointment was arranged with the resident or whether it involved access to her property. As the job appears on the repair log for the resident’s property, and not on the separate repair log provided for the communal plant room, it would have been good practice for the landlord to keep the resident informed of progress and explain the reason for the appointment being rearranged. While it was appropriate for the attending operative to request a joint visit with a supervisor if they felt this would help to resolve the issue, more effective planning could have resulted in this being identified in advance, and either supervisor attendance on 23 February 2023 or more notice being given of the cancellation.
It is relevant to note at this stage that, although the notes from 3 February 2023 stated that heating and hot water had been restored following the repair, an email from the landlord’s contractor dated 5 April 2023 said that the resident had “hot water and minimal heating” between 3 February 2023 and the eventual repair on 10 March 2023. The email further stated that the work was classed as priority ‘P2’ rather than ‘P1’ as “during heating season we prioritise those [who are] the most vulnerable with no services”. It is unclear how the landlord and/or contractor assessed vulnerability, as while the resident had reported the repair, her husband was known by the landlord to be physically vulnerable. Both were also in their 60s. There is no reference in the landlord’s repair policy or heating policy to what it considers ‘heating season’, the different categories of priority, or how these are calculated. It is also unclear whether the resident received a lower priority because she was not considered vulnerable, or because she had some level of service (i.e. hot water and some heating). A recommendation has been made to address this.
In view of the 7-week delay in restoring the resident’s heating to full functionality, which occurred during the colder period of January to March, the landlord should have offered her an alternative method of heating such as temporary heaters. The landlord later informed this Service that “temporary heaters were available to the customer at all times”, but there is no evidence that it informed her of this or how she could access them. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had been provided with temporary heaters in the past (in or around February 2017), so the landlord may have assumed she was aware she had access to them. However, it should have made this clear and reminded her of its policy to pay £7.50 per day to cover the running costs. If it was the case that temporary heaters were available in the building to all residents, the landlord would need a way of knowing which resident(s) were using them and when, in order to reconcile future reimbursement costs and ensure availability of heaters to anyone who may need them.
Despite carrying out repairs to the resident’s heating in March 2023, the landlord did not install AAVs until June 2023. As its records state that the recommendation for AAVs was made in January 2023, this meant there was a delay of at least 5 months, which was excessive. The resident’s frustration is evident from a recent update provided by the landlord to this Service, which notes that “the customer expressed concerns that it took 6 months from [the contractor] recommending installation of the air vents in January to actually getting them installed in June, and that she had 3 missed appointments in that time”. It appears that the delay was caused by multiple factors: firstly an issue with the landlord’s works order interfacing with the contractor’s system, causing a delay from 13 March 2023 to 28 April 2023; and secondly a delay in carrying out the work, which was raised with a 28-day target timeframe, chased on 23 May 2023 after 25 days had passed, and completed after 49 days. Both delays unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s concern and uncertainty, and effective communication would have improved her experience.
There were also issues with the appointment in June 2023, which was originally due to take place on 14 June 2023. Only 1 of the 2 operatives who were scheduled to attend the appointment arrived, and the resident was subsequently informed by the attending operative (and not the landlord or contractor) that the appointment had been cancelled. This was unsatisfactory. The records provided indicate that the landlord questioned the reason for the cancellation with its contractor, and that it apologised to the resident, which was appropriate. However, while it accepted that a service failure had occurred, it did not offer additional compensation for this. It therefore missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident, who it described as being “very angry” on the phone.
In view of the complicated and ongoing nature of the heating issues, it was helpful of the landlord to visit in person with its contractor and consultant on 26 July 2023. This followed the installation of a temporary plant on 30 June 2023, and it may have been beneficial for the landlord to meet with residents prior to the installation; this could have pre-empted some of their concerns about the location of the plant in the car park. Nevertheless, the visit on 26 July 2023 represented a meaningful attempt to engage with residents and listen to their concerns. It appears that particular attention was given to the resident’s property, giving rise to a recommendation for an additional radiator. This was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion, as while the heat loss calculation for the resident’s living room was in line with requirements, it recognised the impact of a colder dining area on the resident and put suitable measures in place to address this. Unfortunately the installation and other remedial work was delayed, and while there is some evidence of the landlord chasing progress in August and October 2023 (with a delayed response on one occasion being due to staff annual leave), this resulted in further avoidable detriment to the resident. The landlord’s verbal apology on 22 August 2023 was appropriate and no doubt appreciated, but overall it missed an opportunity to be proactive, follow through on its commitments, and reinforce the positive relationship it had begun to rebuild on 26 July 2023.
Although the resident reported further heating issues in August and October 2023, the landlord did not take the step of replacing the temporary plant with new boilers until a “significant outage” occurred in November 2023. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord requested a quote for the works on 3 October 2023, after receiving recommendations from its consultant on 18 September 2023, and the contractor’s proposal for the works was not received until 2 November 2023. In view of the growing urgency of the situation, it was appropriate for the landlord to source additional labour in order to bring forward installation of the new boilers to 16 November 2023. It also spent a significant period of time in the resident’s property on 19 October 2023, which resulted in identification and resolution of an issue affecting her heating. While many of the landlord’s actions during the latter part of 2023 were positive – including using a team of 4 gas engineers to ensure installation of new heat exchangers was completed before Christmas – the overall timeframe of 11 months to comprehensively address the heating issue exceeded what the Ombudsman would expect. Had the various avoidable delays discussed above been prevented, it is likely that this timeframe would have been reduced.
In summary, while the landlord did some things well, the timeframe of almost a year to fix an issue it had known about since at least 2021 was unsatisfactory. This vastly exceeded the maximum 42-day timeframe stipulated in its policy, and there is no evidence that it took steps to manage residents’ expectations in relation to an extended timeframe (other than, perhaps, its visit on 26 July 2023). The landlord told this Service that the resident “was not without heating or hot water for a prolonged period of time”, but it also acknowledged that “at times only 1 boiler was working … this may have had an impact on hot water production”. This suggests that it was not sure exactly how the resident was affected and when. There is also no evidence that it adequately explored the impact of reduced heating and hot water on her household, or explicitly offered alternative heating, when it was aware her husband was physically vulnerable.
A recurrent theme in this case relates to communication between the landlord and its contractor. The landlord’s policy confirms that it is responsible for its contractor’s actions. There is evidence within the information provided of some effective contract management – for example, in relation to the information provided about the appointment on 1 February 2023 at stage 1, and in relation to the cancelled appointment on 14 June 2023, where the landlord said it was not satisfied with the contractor’s explanation. However, the landlord also seemed to shift the blame onto its contractor and did not always take responsibility or apologise for things it considered to be the contractor’s fault.
It is noteworthy that the contractor apologised to the landlord on 16 and 29 November 2023: on 16 November 2023 it referred to an unexpected subcontractor issue which meant it had “not been able to provide the typically consistent service” and “could have done more to reduce the impact on [the resident]”. It committed to “look into this in depth”. Two weeks later, it apologised to the landlord for any inconvenience caused to residents, including in connection with its delay in identifying the source of trapped air in the resident’s property, and said in future it would “look to alternative solutions and discuss the way forward … to ensure the best possible solution for residents”. These were reflective responses that demonstrated an appropriate level of accountability and gave assurance of improved future service. However, it does not appear that these apologies or explanations were shared with the resident. Had the landlord done so, the resident would have gained a more detailed understanding of the factors contributing to the delays and how the landlord intended to prevent recurrence.
As a result of the delays and communication issues described above, together with insufficient consideration of the impact on the resident and her household’s vulnerability, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Complaint handling and compensation

The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide a tariff for the level of compensation it will offer in different circumstances (other than in cases of room loss or where temporary heaters have been provided). Its more recent compensation policy, which was not in force at the time of its stage 2 response, clarifies that each case is considered on its own merits. Its complaints policy, which was in force at the time, states that its approach to compensation will be informed by the Ombudsman’s policy and remedies guidance.
At stage 1, the landlord offered the resident a gift card with a value of £75. It did so in the belief that its contractor had missed an appointment on 1 February 2023, but had made efforts to contact the resident and rebook the appointment on 4 occasions over the following week. This was later found not to have been the case. With regard to the landlord’s decision making, which informed the level of compensation awarded, the Ombudsman disagrees that an appointment missed without explanation did not constitute a service failure. Even if the repair in question was subsequently within the stipulated 28-day timeframe (which it was not), there was a failure to communicate effectively with the resident about the appointment. This necessitated redress beyond the apology that was given. The missed appointment and delay caused understandable frustration to the resident, who had taken time off work on 1 February 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this in its offer of £75. The level of compensation offered at this stage falls within this Service’s recommended range for a single service failure (£50 to £100), and was therefore in line with the landlord’s assessment of the level of failure. However, due to the inaccurate information relied on by the landlord, the amount did not reflect the multiple failures that had occurred by the time of the stage 1 response – namely, multiple missed or miscommunicated appointments and a delayed repair – and was therefore insufficient.
At stage 2, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £225 and provided a helpful breakdown of this amount. It was appropriate for it to compensate the resident for the inaccuracies in its stage 1 response, as well as for delayed repairs and poor communication. The Ombudsman considers the awards of £75 for inaccuracies and poor communication to have been reasonable. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delayed heating repairs constituted a more serious and impactive failure. At the time of the stage 2 response, the heating issue had been ongoing for 11 weeks and the associated repair remained outstanding. It was therefore disingenuous for the landlord to offer the same level of compensation (£75) for this issue. Having a tariff for calculating compensation may have assisted its stage 2 responder in assessing the scale of the 3 issues and awarding more proportionate amounts for each one.
As the heating issues persisted for at least 8 months beyond the stage 2 response, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have considered awarding additional compensation to reflect the total period of reduced heating and/or hot water (or risk of loss of these). It would have been appropriate for it to do this following its contractor’s reflections and apology in November 2023, or alternatively following completion of the substantive works in December 2023. This is particularly important as compensation is not limited to the context of a formal complaint. Revisiting and increasing its award of compensation would have allowed the landlord to achieve its policy aims of compensating for inconvenience caused, taking a flexible and common sense approach, and taking responsibility for any detriment caused by its contractors. It would also have enabled it to make adequate amends for the relevant factors listed in its compensation policy such as delays in undertaking repairs, loss of amenity, failure to meet target response times, and unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation. Failure to revisit the award meant that the resident was offered compensation for just 11 of the 48 weeks she was without a fully functional heating system and/or worried about imminent loss of heating. This was less than a quarter of the period she was affected.
Besides those relating to compensation, there were other failures by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint. This has led the Ombudsman to consider its complaint handling more generally. For example, it omitted to acknowledge the resident’s verbal escalation request on 10 March 2023, leading her to repeat her request in writing 6 days later. It also took 8 working days to acknowledge the written escalation request on 28 March 2023, which exceeded its current target timeframe of 5 working days as well as the 2-day timeframe that was in place at the time. This was despite the landlord logging the escalation request on the day it was made (16 March 2023) and discussing it internally on 23 March 2023. These departures from policy further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of her case.
In her written escalation request, the resident specifically asked for a phone call, as she felt the lack of a call at stage 1 had contributed to the inaccuracies in the stage 1 response. However, when the landlord logged the escalation request on 16 March 2023, it noted that “I’ve not called as I think this would not help matters”. It therefore missed an opportunity to promptly confirm receipt of the complaint and accommodate the resident’s request. If the officer logging the complaint did not feel qualified to discuss the complaint, they could have confirmed that the resident would receive a call in due course.
The landlord did subsequently call the resident on 28 March 2023, and while this was no doubt appreciated, it appears that the call was made by a member of administrative staff rather than the stage 2 responder. This member of staff simply confirmed that the resident wished to be reimbursed for loss of earnings, and did not draw her attention to its compensation policy (which stated that the landlord would not reimburse for loss of earnings). By advising that the possibility of reimbursement for loss of earnings would be included in the stage 2 investigation, the landlord unfairly raised the resident’s expectations in relation to this aspect of her complaint.
Significantly, the landlord’s complaints policy (dated September 2022) states that stage 2 complaints will be investigated by a senior manager – such as a strategic delivery manager, head of service or director – at the request of the complainant or their representative. It is unclear whether it is simply the stage 2 escalation that a complainant must request, or whether complainants have the additional option of requesting the involvement of a senior manager. In the resident’s case, her stage 1 complaint was responded to by a ‘customer relations home business partner’, whereas her stage 2 complaint was responded to by a ‘customer relations support officer’. There was therefore no evident increase in seniority between the stage 1 and stage 2 responders. Confusingly, the signature used on all complaints correspondence – including the stage 1 extension letter, the stage 2 acknowledgement, and both complaint responses – was the same, despite these communications being sent by 2 different named officers or generically by the customer relations team. This was misleading, and gave an initial impression of both formal responses having been written by the same officer.
The landlord’s updated complaints policy, which postdates the resident’s complaint, is differently worded and states that stage 2 complaints will be “investigated by a different colleague and reviewed by a senior manager”. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code is not prescriptive as to the seniority of a landlord’s complaint responders, but does state that: “Stage 2 is the landlord’s final response and must involve all suitable staff members needed to issue such a response.” Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the involvement of a senior manager should not be optional or available only on request, particularly where potentially large sums of compensation may be appropriate; this could lead to inconsistent and unfair handling of complaints. It is unclear whether the award of compensation was influenced by the seniority of the responding officer in the resident’s case. Since the landlord has amended its complaints policy, no order has been made in relation to this, but a recommendation has been made for the wording relating to a request by the complainant to be reviewed.
An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling and the level of compensation offered. This is because, while it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to reimburse the resident for loss of earnings, the compensation awarded did not reflect the true extent of the detriment she suffered as a result of the heating issue (and other failures). There were also other complaint handling failures, such as delayed or misleading communications, which negatively impacted the resident’s experience of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system and its subsequent handling of repairs;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling, including the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for 7 weeks in fixing a heating issue reported by the resident in January 2023, for 5 months in installing AAVs, and for a number of months in installing an additional radiator in the resident’s living room. While it did some things well, it took 11 months to complete a permanent repair to the communal heating system. This meant that the resident and her husband, who was physically vulnerable, had fluctuating heating and hot water supplies for an extended period. Communication by the landlord’s contractor in relation to appointments was poor, resulting in the resident taking avoidable time off work and spending further time chasing repairs. The landlord sometimes appeared to deflect blame onto its contractor, and did not share the contractor’s apologies or explanations with the resident.
The level of compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the extent of its failure or the detriment caused to the resident. At stage 1, it did not accept that a missed appointment constituted a service failure. It based its decision on inaccurate information and consequently did not award compensation for the multiple failures that had occurred. At stage 2, its award did not recognise the seriousness or impact of the ongoing heating issue. Although the issue continued for 8 months after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it did not award further compensation. Other complaint handling failures related to delayed communications and missed opportunities to manage expectations.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays in carrying out effective repairs to the heating system at Scheme A, poor communication, and failure to adequately consider impact when awarding compensation. The apology should be made in writing by a senior manager.
2. Pay the resident £1,600, comprising:
  1. £800 for its repeated delays and poor communication in relation to the heating repairs, including the distress and inconvenience caused;
  2. £200 in contribution towards the time and trouble she invested in pursuing her repair reports and complaint and waiting for unfulfilled appointments;
  3. £600 for its complaint handling failures, including its failure to offer adequate compensation for the delayed heating repairs in its complaint responses and to consider offering further compensation when the repairs were completed.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the £300 it offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, this should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £1,300 is now due.

Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs and/or heating policies and considers amending these to explain the categories for different levels of priority (such as P1 and P2, as referred to in this report). It should clarify whether its response to heating repairs is dependent on the time of year, and where vulnerability is a factor in response times, it should explain how vulnerability is assessed. It should also ensure its target timescales for repairs are consistent across all its published information, including its policies and repairs guide.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the wording of its complaints policy and ensures it is clear whether complainants have the option of requesting a review of their stage 2 complaint by a senior manager, or whether a senior manager is routinely involved at this stage. If complainants have the option of requesting senior management involvement, this should be stated in the landlord’s template complaint correspondence. If a senior manager is routinely involved in producing or reviewing stage 2 responses, the landlord should consider rewording the relevant section of its policy to prevent misinterpretation. It is further recommended that the landlord considers introducing a tariff for compensation and/or guidance for staff in relation to calculation of compensation.