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

Wealden District Council (202216732)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216732

Wealden District Council

22 February 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s heat pump.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council, and her tenancy started in 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat and she lives with her 2 year old child. The heat pump provides heating and hot water to the property.
  2. The resident reported that the heat pump had started leaking onto electrical wires on 18 June 2022. The landlord’s repair log shows a call out request for this day, but the job was logged on 20 June 2022.
  3. In an email to its heating contractor of 5 July 2022, the landlord said its electrical and general contractors attended the property on 18 June 2022, found the leak from the thermostat/flow sensor, and isolated the cold water supply to the heat pump cylinder. Both the general and electrical contractors’ notes say the resident was told to call the heating contractor. However, the resident submits that the electrician told her he would inform his company what was wrong and get the office to email the heating contractor, as it was a repair it would deal with.
  4. The resident waited a few weeks (wondering why the heating contractor had not contacted her to say the part required for the repair was available) before calling the landlord on 5 July 2022. In the email sent to its heating contractor on 5 July 2022, the landlord said it received a call from the resident as she had not been contacted, and she had had no hot water or heating for around 3 weeks. It provided the heating contractor with her phone number (as it noted its heating contractor had the previous resident’s details on record for that address) and asked it to contact her urgently.
  5. The heating contractor emailed the landlord the same day, and said although it had not been advised of the issue, it had now raised a repair. Its contact notes say it attempted to call the resident twice, leaving voicemails, and sent a text message asking her to call and book a repair appointment. It left a further voicemail the following day before it spoke to her and offered an appointment for that day. However, the resident said she could only provide access to the property on a Friday.
  6. The heating contractor attended the property on Friday 8 July 2022, but was unable to gain access. Its notes say it called the resident who requested the appointment be rescheduled and for a weekend or evening appointment. It offered her a first call appointment, but the resident said she leaves at 6am each morning to care for her mother, and returns after 6pm.
  7. The heating contractors’ contact notes say it left 2 voicemails for the resident on 11 July 2022, sent her a text message on 12 July 2022, and emailed the landlord to ask if a housing officer could assist in contacting her. There is no copy of the email or any reply, but its notes say it also emailed its operatives on 13 July 2022 regarding the possibility of a weekend appointment. 
  8. The heating contractor said it had booked the repair for Saturday 16 July 2022 in an email to the landlord dated 22 August 2022. There are no records of the call, but it said the appointment was cancelled, as the resident said there was no point in attending if it could not guarantee the repair would be completed.
  9. The resident said she contacted the landlord on 27 July 2022 for an update and was told the electrical contractor had not reported back what needed to be done to repair the heat pump. The resident said she felt she had been waiting for nothing and has told the Ombudsman that, after this call, she did not receive contact from the landlord or the contractor for some time.
  10. The resident called the landlord on 22 August 2022 to say she had not had heating or hot water for 2 months, she had been told someone would attend to fit a replacement part, and she had not heard anything further. The landlord then emailed its heating, electrical and general contractors for an update. The heating contractor said the repair had been closed down by a covering member of staff (as the senior administrator had been on leave) following the cancellation of the previous appointment. It said it assumed the resident would make contact when she was able to provide access but would contact her to arrange an appointment.
  11. The heating contractor left a voicemail for the resident and requested additional contact information for her from the landlord on 23 August 2022. It then emailed her to ask when she could provide access to the property between 8am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. It said it could offer an appointment between 8am and 10am if it made access easier for her.
  12. The resident replied the next day to ask for an appointment on Monday 29 August 2022 and said the operative would need the part for the repair or it would be pointless attending.
  13. It is unclear what happened with this appointment, but the resident made a complaint on 29 August 2022. She said she reported the repair nearly 3 months ago and had called on many occasions. She said the heating contractor had contacted her and arranged an appointment for 7 September 2022. She explained that she had a 2 year old child, had been using a launderette as she was not able to use the washing machine, and had to pay family members to shower at their houses. Finally, she advised that the leak from the heat pump had ruined her laminate flooring.
  14. The resident cancelled the appointment booked for 7 September 2022 as her partner had booked a holiday and the appointment was re-scheduled for 14 September 2022.
  15. The heating contractor emailed the landlord on 13 September 2022 and said, as it did not attend respond to the initial repair, it had not been able to access the property to inspect the heat pump since the landlord contacted it on 5 July 2022. As a result, it could not order the correct part to complete the repair. The landlord said that it thought the part had already been ordered and, if not, the parts team would need to be chased after the appointment the following day. However, the resident subsequently cancelled the appointment for 14 September 2022 due to her child being unwell.
  16. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2022. It said:
    1. The site visit notes from the contractors that attended on 18 June 2022 said the resident was advised to contact the heating contractor.
    2. The heating contractor provided evidence it tried to contact the resident over the following 6 weeks, and the resident cancelled 2 repair appointments.
    3. Once it provided the resident’s email address to the heating contractor, communication improved. It apologised for not doing so at an earlier date and for the miscommunication regarding who should contact the heating contractor.
    4. The laminate floor was gifted by a previous tenant and if the resident wanted the landlord to consider compensation for water damage, she needed to provide images identifying damage and receipts.
  17. No evidence has been provided of the resident’s response, but the landlord noted that she asked for the complaint to be escalated on 15 September 2022 as she did not agree with the outcome. She reiterated that she had a hot water fill washing machine which she had been unable to use, so had used the launderette for washing, and had showered at friends’ and family’s houses. The landlord declined the complaint escalation by email on 20 September 2022 as it said no new information had been provided which would change the outcome and it considered the complaint fully answered at stage 1.
  18. The heating contractor attended on 21 September 2022 to inspect the heat pump and ordered the replacement part. An internal landlord email dated 10 October 2022 acknowledges the resident had told it the operative told her the repair could have been resolved much sooner, and he had to get the electrical contractor to order the part which should have been done in June 2022.
  19. The resident made a second complaint on 28 September 2022. In the landlord’s response of 30 September 2022 it said the issues raised had already been dealt with in its previous stage 1 response. However, the resident’s compensation request had not been addressed, and it would consider reimbursing her for launderette use if she was able to provide evidence of costs incurred.
  20. According to the heating contractor’s notes, on 30 September 2022 it called the resident and scheduled a repair appointment for 3 October 2022, on the basis the replacement part was available. However, if it was not available it would contact her. It then tried to contact the resident on 3 October 2022 (as the part was not available) and left a voicemail. It also chased the parts supplier and emailed the landlord to say it was “at the mercy” of its supplier.
  21. The resident called the landlord on 7 October 2022 and said she had not had an update about the part and had not received a missed call or voicemail from the heating contractor.
  22. The landlord chased its heating and electrical contractors for an update on 10 October 2022. The following day the electrical contractor said it only had the initial call out on its system, which it attended with the general contractor. It said the repair would normally be considered a heating contractor repair, and although it acknowledged it sometimes orders parts for them, it had not been asked to do so or heard anything since the callout on 18 June 2022. It also said it had tried to access the property on 3 occasions between September 2021 and June 2022 to service the heat pump but had been unsuccessful.
  23. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2022 to say she was spending on average £64 a week on washing and drying at the launderette.
  24. An internal landlord email said the replacement part arrived on 10 October 2022 and the resident was offered an appointment for that afternoon. The heating contractor emailed the landlord to say it had booked the repair for 12 October 2022, but the resident cancelled this appointment as her mother had a hospital appointment. The repair was ultimately completed the following day.
  25. Despite initially refusing the complaint escalation request, the landlord sent a stage 2 response on 21 October 2022. Whilst it had considered compensating the resident for weekly launderette charges, it noted that she had included expenses for drying clothes which it would not compensate for as this was an additional service. Instead, it offered £200 to cover reasonable washing costs for one adult and one child over the time the resident had not been able to use her washing machine. It also noted that delays in its contractors accessing the property were partially caused by the resident cancelling appointments.
  26. The resident contacted her MP on 21 October 2022 and reiterated that she had been spending £64 a week at the launderette which meant she had had to use a foodbank. She said over the 4 months she had spent £1,024 on washing and drying clothes and had had to borrow money to get by each week. She emailed the landlord unhappy with the compensation offer and contacted this Service on 31 October 2022.
  27. The MP contacted the landlord on 6 December 2022 and the landlord replied the next day. It repeated its stage 1 and 2 responses, and added that the repair delays had been during summer months when there were periods of extreme hot weather, and unusually the resident’s washing machine fed from the hot water supply rather than cold which had meant she could not use it.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in working order the installations that heat water. The landlord’s Right to Repair policy says total loss of heating and water heating between 1 May and 1 November should be repaired within 3 days. The landlord rightly responded to the initial report about the heat pump with a degree of urgency. However, in line with its policy, the repair should have been completed within 3 days, but this did not happen until 13 October 2022, 82 working days later, which was a failing.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s particular circumstances and the reasons for her regular absences from the property, and sympathises with her position. However, for that reason, the landlord cannot be held wholly responsible for the delay in the repair being completed. The tenancy agreement says the resident agrees to allow access to the landlord’s contractors at reasonable hours to inspect or repair the property or appliances, and the repairs policy says appointments are carried out Monday to Friday between 8am and 5pm. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation that the resident will take steps to facilitate the landlord’s access within those hours in order to help get the repair done.
  3. The heating contractor was not obliged to accommodate the resident’s requests for specific or non-standard repair appointments, but the evidence shows that it did try to do so by attending on a Friday (as requested), enquiring whether it could arrange a weekend appointment, and offering her first call appointments. In order for the heat pump to be repaired, the resident had to provide access to the property and there had to be a degree of flexibility on her part. 
  4. There were external factors beyond the landlord’s service which contributed to the overall delay, including the replacement part for the heat pump being more difficult to source than a standard gas boiler, and the resident cancelling appointments. However, the landlord’s lack of urgency or proactive involvement in the repairs process, coupled with contractor failings and poor communication, ultimately left the resident without heating and hot water for an unreasonable length of time. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience (regardless of the time of year), affected her enjoyment of the property, and ultimately could have led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship, which was a failing.
  5. Repair delays were also caused by waiting for the replacement part to fix the heat pump as it was not ordered following the initial appointment on 18 June 2022. The landlord was aware its electrical contractor attended in the first instance and, had it followed up appropriately, it would have been aware of the requirement for the replacement part which could have avoided some of the delays. Even if the heating contractor had access to the property on any of the rescheduled appointment dates, it would not have been able to complete the repair the same day as the replacement part had not been ordered, but it could have completed the inspection and ordered the part earlier.
  6. There is no evidence to confirm exactly when the part was ordered after the inspection on 21 September 2022, but the evidence shows the landlord and heating contractor had been made aware of the requirement for the part from the resident. The heating contractor could either have spoken to the electrical contractor to find out which part needed ordering, or insisted on inspecting the heat pump on 16 July or 29 August 2022 and explained to the resident it needed to inspect the heat pump before it could order the part. This was a failing and caused delays to the repair.
  7. The evidence shows another factor in the repair delays was multiple instances of communication failures between parties, and no one taking responsibility for the repair. However, the landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing. 
  8. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to accept responsibility, monitor the repair, ensure any necessary parts were ordered and works orders raised, and ensure the repair was completed in accordance with its policies. Instead, it was often left to the resident to chase the repair, flag delays, and ensure the relevant parties were communicating with each other.
  9. The evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for updates on multiple occasions and it only appeared to take action when she contacted it. She did not hear anything from 16 July 2022 (after the heating contractor closed the repair) to 27 July 2022 when she called for an update. The evidence suggests even after the resident’s call, the landlord did not do anything to progress the repair until she called again on 22 August 2022, 18 working days later, which was a failing and caused the resident further inconvenience.
  10. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £200 to cover the resident’s launderette costs. It acknowledged that it could have provided a contact email address to the heating contractor earlier, which would have improved communication, and for the miscommunication over who should report the repair to the heating contractor. However, it did not:
    1. Acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident of having no hot water for showers for herself or her 2 year old and having to shower at family and friends’ homes.
    2. Take any responsibility for its part in the delays repairing the heat pump.
    3. Acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident by her continually having to chase for updates.
  11. Therefore, while the landlord did acknowledge some failings and made some attempt to put things right (in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles), it failed to fully address the detriment to the resident and the offer it made was not proportionate to the failings identified. As a result, there was maladministration and further actions is needed to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. 
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it can award discretionary payments for failure to provide a service, temporary loss of amenity, failure to follow policy and unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation, yet it did not offer compensation for any of these, which was not reasonable in this case. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £700 compensation to recognise the impact on the resident, which is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s heat pump.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the repair to the heat pump.
    3. Pay the resident a further £200 to reimburse the resident for charges she incurred at the launderette (if it has not already done so).
    4. Alter its repairs policy, if it has not already done so, to include reference to heat pump repairs.
    5. Confirm with its contractors exactly who is responsible for what when repairing heat pumps, to avoid similar delays in future. 
    6. Review its processes for recording repair appointments, telephone calls and actions to ensure complete records are held and available for inspection by this service. The landlord may wish to consider the findings in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which is available on our website, to support this.
    7. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.