Wandle Housing Association Limited (202001065)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001065

Wandle Housing Association Limited

16 June 2022

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system from January 2021.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system from 2017.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that, in his opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman refers to how the landlord handled reports of historic repairs to the boiler since its installation in 2017, which the resident believed did not resolve her heating issues. However, this investigation has not identified any further evidence that a formal complaint was raised about the repairs for the heating system in 2017.
The resident provided evidence to the Service that shows she made a complaint to the landlord on 11 November 2019 about a new thermostat that was not synced, radiators that did not heat up, and a continuous loss of hot water and heating. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident chased or escalated this complaint at the time.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the heating system from 2017 (Complaint 1(b) above) is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is because there is no evidence that a formal complaint was made and progressed by the resident about the landlord’s response to the reports of repairs in 2017 or 2019.
This investigation accordingly focuses on the events leading to and contemporaneous to the complaint that was brought to the landlord’s attention on 23 February 2021.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, occupying the ground and the first floor of a three-bedroom converted house.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord “to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water”.
The landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Policy states its repair responsibilities include heating and hot water, gas pipes and equipment supplied by the landlord. Under this policy, an appointed repair should be dealt with within 28 days of it being reported.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it will acknowledge all complaint requests within five working days, and respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The Complaints Policy also states that it will respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days or inform the resident if it cannot respond within this timeframe with an explanation and won’t extend this beyond a further 10 working days without good reason.

Summary of events

The landlord has set out a chronology of the resident’s repair history for this Service of the events that occurred from January 2021 to January 2022, after evidence was requested for this investigation. The chronology details that on 27 January 2021 the resident reported that the radiators were not heating up in the front room and hallway. A contractor attended on 29 January 2021 and noted a new valve was required on the lounge, hallway, and bedroom radiators, which were fixed after the contractor’s visit that day.
The chronology states that the contractor attended on the morning of 22 February 2021 (although the appointment was for 23 February 2021) and advised that the valve did not need to be changed and noted that the system was working. The resident then contacted the landlord on 23 February 2021, reported that the radiator did not work, and booked a new appointment.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 February 2021 regarding the appointment that was attended mistakenly a day earlier. The resident also complained that this appointment did not resolve the heating issues as the radiator was not adequately repaired.
On the same day, the landlord provided its stage one response, apologising for the error with the appointment attendance, and advised that there had been a human error with the appointment booking, and that this had been passed to the contractor to investigate. The number of visits it was taking to resolve the repair issue had also been referred to the contractor to investigate, and the landlord would update the resident once it had responded.
The chronology states that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 26 February 2021, noted that the value had not been replaced, and stated that it escalated this to a manager, who instructed the valve to be fitted.
The resident has provided evidence that on 2 March 2021 she complained to the landlord regarding the appointment on 22 February 2021. She complained that the contractor who was supposed to replace the valve to repair the radiator did not complete this repair and instead balanced the radiator, which resulted in the radiator failing to work again several hours later. The resident requested that the landlord remove and replace the radiator to prevent contractors from reattending during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to permanently fix the issue with the radiator. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident at this time.
On 6 March 2021, the resident chased the landlord regarding the works, and the contractor attended on 16 March 2021. The landlord’s chronology reports that it fitted the valve and left the radiator functioning, but that the resident called the landlord on 18 March 2021 and reported that there had been no hot water since the previous appointment, and a radiator was not working.
On 24 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and complained about the 16 March 2021 appointment. The resident reported the landlord’s contractors attended to put a valve on the radiator but again it did not work, and the central heating and hot water shut down after the contractors left.
The resident further stated that two days later the contractors confirmed that the replacement of the valve did not fix the problem and they needed to reattend to change the filters in the boiler. The resident raised concerns that the radiators in the other rooms did not turn off, the water pressure continuously dropped and stopped the boiler, preventing hot water or heating, and when they opened the valve under the boiler to raise the water pressure this caused the water to flow outside and erode the external wall.
The resident complained that there had been around five visits from the contractor that year and they wanted the landlord to remove and replace the radiators that were causing this ongoing issue. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint.
A senior engineer attended the property to investigate on 30 March 2021. The chronology notes that contractors drained and removed the flow pipe, removed the finger filter, and refitted and repressurised the expansion vessel. The pressure release valve (PRV) was leaking and so was changed. The boiler was refilled and vented. The heating in the upstairs and the bathroom worked but the radiators in the hallway and the lounge were poor. It was found that the living room radiator needed to be manually flushed.
The resident reported that the heating system was down on 31 March 2021 and the landlord attended the property that day. It recorded that it topped up the pressure and tested and checked the PRV and vessels were okay before leaving. The landlord recorded that on 9 April 2021, it contacted the resident to book an appointment for the works required, but the resident refused as they wanted the whole heating system to be changed rather than the radiators being flushed.
The chronology notes that the resident called on 7 June 2021, asking questions about the boiler and stated that they were taking the landlord to court. The landlord agreed to inspect the radiators to consider replacing them on 17 June 2021. It attended on 23 June 2021 and the landlord’s chronology notes that the PRV was causing the pressure to drop and confirmed that the radiators were old, and some were rusty.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord’s chronology notes that the resident called the landlord and refused any further appointments unless the radiators were changed, and cancelled the next appointment. The landlord’s chronology shows no further contact until 17 September 2021 when it noted ‘customer requests appointment’.
Conversely, the resident reports that she received a call from the Asset Management Team on 15 July 2021, who informed her that the landlord had approved the replacement of three radiators. However, she then received no further communication from the landlord, so emailed it on 9 September 2021, referring to the 15 July 2021 call and stating ‘…no work has been started, I neither heard back from…the Asset Management Team nor have I had any contact from [the contractor]’. She asked the landlord to address this.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 17 September 2021 it noted that it had asked its contractor to contact the resident regarding measuring up for the radiators, ‘…but it seems this got missed.’ The contractors contacted the resident that afternoon.
The resident reports that she received a call from the contractors on 17 September 2021 to make an appointment for an operative to take measurements for the three replacement radiators and to look at the boiler. This went ahead on 20 September 2021. On 23 September 2021, the landlord authorised the works for the radiators to be removed and replaced. It recorded that it ordered new radiators that day.
The landlord documented in its chronology that it only managed to install one radiator on 4 October 2021 as the two new radiators were either damaged or the wrong size. On 14 October 2021 the landlord attended to fit a new expansion vessel.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response and apologised for its failure to resolve the complaint. It acknowledged that the landlord did not follow through with the actions promised at stage one, and that the resident had to chase up the issue themselves. It apologised and stated that a process was now in place to follow through on complaints ‘to provide a full resolution.’ It said that it would learn from the experience and make improvements. The letter said that while there had been several visits and new parts fitted, these had not addressed the issue, and that this would be put right at the appointment on 14 October 2021 via a new expansion vessel and PRV being fitted. The landlord also:
1. Concluded that leaks were the result of reduced pressure that required an expansion vessel and pressure relief valve, which was scheduled to be fitted and not integral to the new boiler.
2. Acknowledged that its contractor did not fit all three new radiators and explained that the resident advised to not install them as the pipework required to be flushed out prior to this.
3. Noted the resident’s recent report of another error message on the boiler and confirmed it would manage its contractor to resolve and ensure functioning radiators and a boiler.
4. Proposed that it would “review compensation once the works were completed, dependent on the delay in completing the work, the lack of heating and intermittent hot water, the disruption, and lack of communication”.
5. Agreed to provide a requested history breakdown within five days.
6. Promised to ensure the restoration of the resident’s heating system, monitor this daily to keep communication lines open and ensure that any damage to the external brickwork due to the leaks was restored.
A new expansion vessel was fitted on 14 October 2021. A Manager attended on 15 October 2021 and found that the pipework needed to be changed, and this work was then carried out on 20 October 2020 with the landlord stating that the heating system was left working.
The resident reports that the contractor attended on 20 October 2021 and carried out work to the piping system connected to the boiler. She states, ‘The work was done in the most unsatisfactory way possible. I have copper pipes running across the walls in my kitchen that is an absolute eyesore.’ The resident complained to the landlord about this on 29 October 2021.
The landlord noted that the resident refused further appointments with its contractor until it attended to inspect the property. Therefore, the landlord attended the property with an independent consultant on 8 November 2021 and advised that it would report its findings to the contractor.
The resident reports that the independent consultant agreed that the work was not done to a reasonable standard and was incomplete, as holes left in the wall had not been rendered, the pipe work was of unsatisfactory fitting, pipes were not boxed in, and pipe work was not completed. The resident states that she was told that the landlord would meet with its contractor and revert to her with the outcome of this by 14 November 2021.
Internal landlord emails show that, following on from the 8 November 2021 inspection, on 18 November 2021 a Manager made the following recommendations for works to be carried out:
1. Renew pipework from the living room radiator to the hallway radiator.
2. Protect these pipes in the wall before making good.
3. Pipes in the kitchen above door to be taken to the ceiling and boxed in.
4. PRV required making good outside.
The landlord emailed the resident the following day detailing these works, and saying that the Manager would oversee the project and inspect the pipework before it was sealed up. In addition, once works were complete it would discuss compensation ‘in terms of this overall job, although as mentioned your complaint has been escalated to the Housing Ombudsman who may advise us in this regard.’
The chronology shows no further contact with the resident until 12 January 2022 when the contractors called the resident to book in the works. On 28 January 2022, an appointment was booked to rectify the works following the inspection by the independent consultant, and the landlord recorded that the resident wanted the consultant to verify the quality of work.
The final job at the property was completed on 2 March 2022, and a new timer was fitted. No further issues were raised. The landlord has paid the resident £30 compensation for a missed appointment on the 25 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
In their complaint to this Service in July 2021 the resident explained that the boiler in the property continuously cut out due to the pressure dropping. There had been a number of attendances by contractors, who had been unable to resolve the issue for a long period. The resident reports that the boiler and heating system have now been fully repaired, but large holes have been left in the skirting board and walls in the living room where piping and a radiator were removed.
As noted on the ‘background’ section above, the landlord was obliged to keep in repair the heating system at the property, and in line with its Repair and Maintenance Policy, the issue should have been dealt with within 28 days. In this case, the repair was not completed until over a year later. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord and demonstrates that the resident was not treated fairly.
There were around 15 attendances by the landlord to try and resolve the issue. This would have been inconvenient and time consuming for the resident. Initially it took several attendees to change the valve, but this did not resolve the issue. Further works were carried out in March 2021 but again these did not resolve the issue. Additional works were identified on 30 March 2021, and there seems there was some delay following this not attributable to the landlord as the resident did not want these to go ahead and instead wanted the whole system changed.
However, in June 2021 the landlord agreed to inspect the radiators to consider replacing them. The resident states that the landlord agreed to this in July 2021, but then heard nothing further. This account is supported by the landlord’s internal records which show that that it had asked its contractor to contact the resident to arrange the radiator replacement but it ‘got missed’. This was a further delay on the part of the landlord, followed by another as the radiators that were ordered were either damaged or the wrong size.
The information available suggests that the cause of the problem was the pipework (given that all the works carried out prior to the pipework being changed did not resolve the problem). It was not until the Manager’s attendance on 15 October 2021 that this was identified. While the Ombudsman understands that sometimes it can take some time to identify the root of a problem, the timeframe in this case was excessive.
Although the pipework was then replaced a week later, this work was not carried out satisfactorily, with a further inspection identifying a number of further works required as confirmed in a Manager’s email dated 18 November 2021 (and as reported by the resident themselves). Given it had by this stage been 10 months since the resident had reported the problem, this further delay in the works being completed compounded their frustration and dissatisfaction.
There is then no evidence that the landlord progressed this until two months later, when the resident was contacted to book in an appointment, representing a further delay on the part of the landlord. This is especially concerning given that the landlord had promised in it stage two response to ensure the restoration of the heating system and monitor this daily. This does not appear to have happened.
There is no evidence that the landlord ‘reviewed compensation’ once the works were completed as it said it would in its stage two response, taking into account the delay in completing the works, the lack of heating and intermittent hot water, the disruption, and lack of communication. Therefore, the landlord has not ‘put things right’ for the resident.
In light of this an order for remedy is made below. The compensation amount takes into account the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance, which sets out amounts of £250 to £700 where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but no permanent impact on the complainant, and amounts of over £700 where there has been a significant and/or long term impact. In this case, while it may be said that there has been no permanent impact on the resident, the issue was ongoing for a year (and the resident states remains unresolved to date as holes remain in the wall).

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the 22 February 2021 complaint in good time. However, there is no indication that it updated the resident on the matters passed to its contractor as it had said it would. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the resident’s 2 March and 24 March 2021 complaints at that time. It is assumed that the stage two response from October 2021 related to one or both of these complaints, although it is not clear. This represents a significant delay in proving the stage two response, well outside of the complaint policy’s 20 working day timeframe, with no explanation provided. This would have added to the resident’s frustration
The stage two response appropriately acknowledged failings and apologised for these, and stated that it would learn from these and make improvements. However, there is no further information on how this learning and improvement would be taken forward. In addition, while the stage two response specifically stated that a process was now in place to follow through on complaints ‘to provide a full resolution’ there is no indication that a ‘full resolution’ was provided following the stage two.
The expansion vessel did not resolve the matter as promised, the further works to the pipework were not carried out correctly, and there was then a two-month delay in the landlord taking action to complete the works. This is not indicative of the landlord monitoring the situation as it had promised it would. Further, although the landlord stated it would review compensation once all works had been completed, the only evidence that it did so is a £30 payment made for a missed appointment. There is no indication that it assessed the delay, lack of heating and intermittent hot water, the disruption and lack of communication.
Overall, there is little evidence that the landlord took action to ‘put things right’ for the resident or ‘learn from outcomes.’ Therefore, orders for remedy are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the heating system.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

It took over a year and many attendances for the landlord to complete the repairs to the heating system, which was frustrating and time consuming for the resident. During this period the resident experienced the inconvenience of intermittent heating and hot water.
The landlord did not respond to the March 2021 complaints until seven months later. While the response acknowledged failings and apologised for these, the landlord did not then follow up on the promise made to monitor and rectify the issue, or review compensation. There is no evidence that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £800, comprised of £600 for the frustration, time and trouble, and inconvenience experienced due to the failings in the handling of the repair, and £200 for the frustration, and time and trouble experienced due to the failings in the complaint handling.
2. Attend the property in relation to the resident’s reports of holes left in the skirtings and walls from the works. Inspect and make good affected areas.
3. Review the handling of the repair to identify the cause of the delay in completing this, and what actions have been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence, including what the landlord has done to learn from the experience and make improvements as per the stage two response. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review.
4. Review the complaint handling to determine the cause of the long delay in responding to the March 2021 complaints, why the actions promised in both the stage one and stage two responses were not followed up, and whether there is a functioning process to follow through on complaints ‘to provide a full resolution’ or if one needs to be implemented. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of the review.