Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202103100)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103100

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

19 November 2021


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 the resident’s concerns about the heating system in the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord for the property, which is a house.
  2. On 30 December 2020 the landlord raised an emergency repair because the resident reported that her heating was not working and her hot water was too hot. The landlord confirmed that the heating system had been serviced the previous week. An operative attended the next day, found no faults, and left the heating system fully working. The operative advised the resident to not turn off the system and that it would return on 4 January 2021 to “re-gas” the system.
  3. The local councillor contacted the landlord on 1 January 2021 and forwarded it an email from the resident. The resident said the system had not worked properly since November 2020 and was costing her lot of money, turning on at all hours. She said she had informed an operative of the issues (she was not getting heating but the hot water was too hot) when they serviced the system on 11 December 2020. The local councillor confirmed the landlord had offered temporary electric heating but said the resident could not afford the running costs.
  4. The landlord’s records say it provided the resident a £50 fuel payment and delivered temporary heaters on 2 January 2021.
  5. On 4 January 2021 an operative attended to “re-gas” the system and left it in working order. The operative provided the resident the contractor’s telephone number to call if there were any further issues, which the resident rang later that day to advise it was not working again and she had switched the system off. The resident was advised to switch the system back on and allow time for it to reach the desired temperature.
  6. An operative attended on 5 January 2021 and noted that the system was switched off. They left the system working and increased the temperature for the heating to turn on to 18 degrees, at the resident’s suggestion. The landlord also spoke with the resident, who confirmed she did not need further assistance with the heating costs.
  7. On 6 January 2021 the resident reported that the system did not turn on when the temperature fell below 16 degrees the day before, but it did turn on for the two scheduled timers. She advised that the temperature for the house was 16 degrees and the hot water was set to 40 degrees, but unbearable to touch.
  8. The landlord visited on 8 January 2021 and reported that it left the system working.
  9. On 9 January 2021 the resident reported further issues with the system and asked to log a complaint. She expressed her distress that the system was not working as it should (the heating either carried on running when it should not or did not run when it should, and that the hot water was scolding), that she felt the contractor would find a way to blame her, and with the contractor’s operative’s conduct. She confirmed she had an appointment for 11 January 2021 and asked for a senior person to attend. The landlord confirmed that the contractor’s manager would attend on 11 January 2021, and carry out repairs. It explained that it felt the issues were linked with the hot water system.
  10. The contractor attended on 11 January 2021 and found no faults with the system. It slightly changed the settings and noted that it would be monitored until 14 January 2021.
  11. On 12 January 2021 the resident reported that the system continued to not request heat.
  12. The contractor attended on 15 January 2021 and diagnosed a fault with “the dry pocket”. It confirmed it would replace it and that it left the system working. However, that evening the resident reported that she had no heating.
  13. On 21 January 2021 the contractor replaced the “dry pocket” and adjusted the system settings at the resident’s request, leaving it fully working.
  14. A visit was arranged for the contractor, landlord and councillor to attend on 25 January 2021 because the resident continued to report faults with the system.  The landlord records note that “a suggestion was made” to change the control panel.
  15. The landlord replaced the control panel on 28 January 2021. However, on 30 January 2021 the resident reported that the heating was lukewarm and not working as it should that morning.
  16. On 1 February 2021 the landlord delivered more temporary heaters to the resident. The contractor rang the resident the next day and she advised that she turned the system off because she believed it was not working. It advised her that she must leave it on because the system was designed to be left on, unlike a gas central heating system.
  17. The landlord, contractor and councillor attended the property on 4 February 2021. The landlord’s system notes state that, although the heating system was working and calling for heat, the resident said it had not turned on in line with the scheduled timings. The system was showing different timings set, but the resident stated they had not changed them. Previously the resident did not have any timing schedules set and had operated the system manually with the temperature set at 18 degrees. Therefore, during the visit the engineer removed the timing schedules, leaving a basic 18-degree temperature setting. The landlord also left the temporary heaters because the resident appeared to be still using them and confirmed they had not increased her electrical running costs since the hot water had been fixed. Other options were discussed with the resident, including installing gas central heating or a temporary move to alternative accommodation whilst the system was monitored, however these were declined.
  18. The councillor asked the landlord to complete a full electrical test of the property and for an independent contractor to check the heating system. The electrical test was completed on 9 February 2021 and the independent contractor checked the system on 11 February 2021. The electrics and heating system were all considered safe and in good working order.
  19. The resident continued to report that the system was not working, and so the landlord arranged for its two contractors to attend all day on 18 February 2021 to monitor the system. No problems were found during this visit and landlord left a laptop device to fully monitor the activity of the system for one week. No issues were found with the system and the data that was recorded every 60 seconds. It was confirmed that if the system was left on, it would reach the desired temperature with minimal electricity used.
  20. In its stage one complaint response, dated 5 March 2021, the landlord apologised for the length of time taken to investigate, identify, and rectify any issues.
    1. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the conduct of its engineer and any suggestions made that the fault was with user error. The landlord confirmed the resident’s concerns would be investigated internally by the contractor.  
    2. The landlord confirmed it had provided temporary heaters and a £50 fuel payment on 2 January 2021, a further three were offered on 19 January 2021 but declined as the resident had borrowed two, and a further three heaters were then provided to her on 1 February 2021.  
    3. It explained that initially the issue with the hot water was thought to be associated with temperature control devices, some of which were replaced. However, following further reports raised by the resident, visits were undertaken to attempt to establish the cause of the problem and the issue was identified on 15 January 2021. The landlord completed works on 21 January 2021, with the system left working as it should.
    4. The landlord explained it had attended on several occasions in relation to the heating. It noted each time the system was left in full working order and the resident switched off the system on several occasions, which had been explained as detrimental to its operation. It explained the monitoring exercise confirmed that if the system was left and on, it would reach the desired temperature with minimal electricity used.  It noted since the original report of no heat, it had acted immediately on each occasion and engineers attended quickly to try and rectify any issues. The landlord noted it had recently removed the timing schedules at the request and would be happy to revert this back to include schedules or work with the resident to provide further time to get used to the settings. Alternatively, if the resident was still unhappy with the system, it explained the only other option was to offer replacing it with gas central heating. The landlord offered £100 due to the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident.
  21. According to the landlord’s records, on 8 March 2021 the resident wrote a letter to the contractor. In this, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the contractor’s failure to resolve the issues, and that she felt she was dismissed and the problem put down to user error. She said that when the independent contractor attended, they found several faults, and when the laptop device was left to monitor the system in February 2021, there was a power surge which interrupted the monitoring. She forwarded this letter to the landlord on 23 March 2021 and explained that the heating system was still not working as it should as it was getting too hot and running even when shut off. The resident spoke with the contractor on 30 March 2021, who asked to complete a further monitoring exercise in the property due to the resident’s continued reports of her dissatisfaction with the system.
  22. On 10 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it had escalated her complaint and would respond within 15 working days.
  23. The landlord updated the resident on 29 March 2021 that it was not in a position to respond within the 15 working day timeline, and expected to respond by 23 April 2021.
  24. In a further update to the resident on 22 April 2021, the landlord advised that it was still not in a position to provide a stage two complaint response. It said it understood that the resident raised her concerns directly with the contractor, which was completing its own investigation including monitoring the system. The landlord said it considered it appropriate to respond when it received the outcome of the contractor’s investigation and hoped to respond by 14 May 2021.
  25. The landlord sent what appears to be an interim complaint response on 30 April 2021. It said it was satisfied that it took timely action in response to the resident’s reports, and that the system was left working following its visits. The landlord said it was satisfied that it tried to support the resident by providing temporary heating and fuel payments to contribute towards heating costs. It confirmed it also offered to temporarily move the resident while the system was monitored, which she declined. The landlord said that it would issue its final complaint response when the contractor had concluded their investigations, but the resident could refer her complaint to this Service.
  26. The resident continued to report issues with the system and the landlord internally confirmed that the heating contractor would be sending an independent engineer to check the contractor’s work. The contractor’s report, dated 11 May 2021, confirmed it had completed comprehensive checks and found the system to be working as it should. A recommendation was made to relocate the control panel, and that the power to the system should not be shut off unless advised to by a technician.
  27. The landlord received the contractor’s findings on 18 May 2021. The landlord’s records say that it recommended to re-site the control panel, however the contractor advised that it was only a suggestion and that, it was possibly in the best location due to the temperature setting and the layout of the property.
  28. The resident reported a further issue with her heating not working, and the landlord attended on 26 May 2021.
  29. The contractor’s email to the landlord of 1 June 2021 reiterated that no fault was found with the heating system and that in its engineer’s recent visit more adjustments were made to the system to better suit the resident’s requests.
  30. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 9 June 2021, it confirmed that its contractor carried out comprehensive checks and confirmed that the system was fully operational for space and water heating and met all of its required specifications. It said the contractor found that there had been no faults found with the system and the issues reported were due to the setup not meeting the end users expectations (apart from the repairs that were initially carried out for the hot water). The landlord confirmed that during the contractor’s last visit, they discussed the resident’s expectations and usage with her, which led it to adjust the system settings to meet the resident’s expectations as closely as possible.
  31. The landlord was satisfied with its handling of the resident’s reports and its previous offer of £100 for the inconvenience and disruption she experienced.  It reiterated that the resident could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

  1. In line with the landlord’s responsive repairs service standards document, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property, any fixtures and fittings it provided. This includes the heating system.
  2. The document provided does not include any timescales for when it should complete repairs.

Assessment

  1. The landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the space and water heating installations in the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults. Although the landlord has not provided its target response times for repairs, the Right to Repair Scheme specifies landlords should respond to repairs where a resident’s heating or hot water are not working within one working day (between 31 October and 1 May) or three working days (between 1 May and 31 October).
  2. Based on the landlord’s records, each time the resident reported having no heating or hot water, the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe, and left the system working. These visits are set out in the background above and line up with the expectations of the Right to Repair Scheme.
  3. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, some repairs were carried out, but the resident continued to report issues. Therefore, two separate contractors carried out comprehensive investigations and checks of the system in order to diagnose the problem.
  4. It is clear that the resident and the local councillor who represented her have concerns regarding the contractor’s competency. However, ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the heating system was working as it should. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and no alternative expert assessments have been provided as part of this case to show that there was a fault with the system that the landlord overlooked. In addition to its own contractor the landlord arrange additional inspections by an independent electrician and heating contractor as requested by the resident’s councillor. These independent assessments corroborated the landlord’s previous conclusions.
  5. It is evident that the multiple attendances by operatives, and the ongoing issues that the resident experienced with her heating system, caused her distress and inconvenience. She also reported that the contractor’s conduct towards her made her feel dismissed and that she was being blamed. Although the landlord was unable to establish service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports, it confirmed it had passed on the resident’s feedback to its contractor to be investigated and offered the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced. The landlord has also confirmed that the contractor adjusted the system settings in an attempt to have the system working as the resident required. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took proactive steps to attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating system in the property.

Reasons

  1. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports within an appropriate timescale and made reasonable efforts, in line with its obligations to resolve the resident’s reports. Although the resident remains unhappy with the contractors’ handling and investigation into her concerns, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s conclusion was in line with its appropriately qualified staff and contractor’s findings, and was corroborated by independent investigations, and is therefore reasonable.