Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202204677)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204677

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

24 February 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a boiler leak.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord.
3. On 14 August 2021 the resident’s wife found a damp patch on the hallway carpet coming from the boiler cupboard. She subsequently found that all the linen and contents inside the cupboard were wet due to a boiler leak. The landlord’s contractors attended on the same day and, after checking the boiler and finding several large leaks in the system, informed the resident’s wife that the boiler was in working condition and did not need to be turned off whilst repairs were completed. Nevertheless, the resident’s wife asked for it to be turned off due to her concerns with the number of leaks and the high pressure indicated by the boiler. Contractors advised her that they would not have hot water for the entire weekend. They attended on the following Monday but could not complete repairs due to a missing part. The landlord has confirmed that the heating system was completely replaced on 23 August 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 18 August 2021. He was concerned that a safety inspection conducted on 5 August 2021 had not detected the leaks. He asked for reimbursement for the time spent on cleaning and washing the damaged items, the electricity and water bills and personal inconvenience. He also asked for the damaged carpet to be replaced, and for an inspection by the landlord to determine the costs incurred by the leak. He asked for advice regarding insurance and possible legal action against the contractors for negligence.
5. The landlord issued a stage one response on 1 December 2021. It apologised for the delay, which it explained was due to a misunderstanding with a similar complaint raised by the resident in 2020. It confirmed repairs to the boiler had been completed in a timely manner following several visits by contractors, and compensation would therefore not be offered. The landlord recommended that the resident make an insurance claim on his contents insurance for any damages. It suggested he claim on its own insurers if he did not hold insurance himself.
6. The landlord issued a review of its formal investigation response on 1 February 2022 due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its first response. The landlord clarified that the boiler was replaced due to the repairs required being uneconomical. It further explained that, at the time of the service, the boiler passed the safety check, and faults could have developed in the following days. It concluded that the landlord was not liable for the subsequent leak as it could not have foreseen it. The landlord explained how the resident could bring her complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident escalated the complaint to this Service on 6 June 2022. He explained that he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to compensate for the costs incurred from the boiler leak, as he believed the safety check carried out the week before by its contractors was negligent. The resident told this Service that the landlord had previously offered to make a settlement, and that was the reason why he did not take legal action when the issue occurred.

Assessment

Landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the resident’s boiler and requests for compensation

8. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will keep in good repair and working order the installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity, the room heating systems and the water-heating systems.
9. The resident reported a leak on his boiler on 14 August 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on the same day, meeting its repairs policy timeframe for emergency repairs (requiring a response within 24 hours to make a situation safe and secure). Nonetheless, as indicated in the repairs policy, additional visits to complete repairs is sometimes required following the initial inspection. Contractors told the resident that they would need to come back another day to complete the required repairs, but that the boiler was in working order. The resident has explained that they chose to turn it off due to their concerns over the leaks and the high pressure exposed. Contractors did advise them that they would not have access to hot water for at least the weekend.
10. Contractors reattended on the following Monday 16 August. Internal emails from the landlord state that they found a further leak upon further visits. It was deemed uneconomical to carry out the required repairs, and therefore the decision was made to replace the boiler with a new one. The evidence also shows that contractors also recommended a heating system upgrade and replacement of the radiators, indicating that there may have been wider problems with the heating system. The landlord has stated works were completed on 23 August 2021, six working days after the leak was first reported, which was within its policy’s routine repairs timeframe.
11. Overall, the landlord’s response to the leak itself was prompt and within its repair timeframes.
12. The landlord explained that there was no evidence indicating that the boiler inspection (11 days before the leak) was negligent, as the subsequent leak could have arisen after the inspection. However, the contractors’ report following their repairs explained a long list of repair issues with various parts of the boiler, including further leaks when they tried to repair it. It was the overall poor condition that led the contractor to recommend replacing it altogether. The nature of some of the repair issues listed by the contractors (such as corrosion) seem, on the face of it, unlikely to have not been present at the time of the safety check, but there is no evidence of the landlord querying this, or asking whether the safety inspection should have found the problems the contractors later found.
13. It is wholly possible that the nature and specifics of the annual safety check meant that it would not have detected the range of repair issues found shortly after. However, that question was fundamental to investigating and responding to the resident’s complaint, and should have been properly considered. The question of whether the landlord (through its contractors) might have played a part in the subsequent leak hinged on that question (by missing something in the annual inspection). The lack of a clear answer means that the landlord’s investigation of the matter was not thorough, and its decision not to provide compensation was not reasonable.
14. The matter raised by the resident about one of the landlord’s officers telling him the landlord would make a legal settlement offer is not one for which any evidence has been seen in this investigation. Regardless, the complaints process is not the same as legal action, and the Ombudsman does not have any remit over legal settlements or similar activity.

Complaint handling

15. The landlord’s first complaint response was issued on 1 December 2021, having missed two earlier deadlines set for 7 and 29 October 2022, and failing to establish an initial deadline in August following the complaint’s acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and responded to within ten working days. As set out in the landlord’s complaint policy, although investigations may be more complex and require longer than ten days in some cases, landlords should keep residents informed of the status of the investigation and establish new target dates for a response.
16. In this case the resident chased the landlord for a response on several occasions, to which the landlord responded on each occasion and advised that the complaint was still undergoing investigation. The landlord apologised for the delay, but 14 weeks to respond was unreasonable when the target was 10 days, especially when the landlord’s only explanation was that it had confused the complaint with another from a previous year, and no other remedy was provided.
17. In his escalated complaint the resident raised issues besides his concerns about the boiler safety inspection. These included his difficulty corresponding with the landlord, the delays with the first complaint stage, and his concerns that one of the landlord’s officers had made an offer to “settle out of court”. The landlord did not address these other aspects of the complaint in its response. As set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
18. These unaddressed delays and incomplete complaint responses amount to overall poor complaint handling.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a boiler leak.
20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

21. In light of the failings found in this report, and the frustration and inconvenience they will have caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £300. This is comprised of:
    1. £175 for its failure to fully consider the resident’s concerns about the annual safety check.
    2. £125 for its poor complaint handling.
22. The landlord is also ordered to investigate whether the annual safety inspection could have or should have identified the repair issues found afterwards, and whether the subsequent leak might have been avoided. A letter explaining the outcome of that investigation must be sent to the resident and shared with this Service. If failings are found, the landlord must reconsider its decision not to provide compensation, and explain its conclusions. This can include providing assistance to the resident to make an insurance claim against the landlord’s own insurers, if necessary and appropriate.
23. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided within four weeks of this report.