NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202225541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225541

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

27 August 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defective hot tap in the bathroom and the amount of compensation it offered after repairing the tap.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 4-bedroom house. The tenant has an assured tenancy, which began on 20 May 2009.
The landlord has confirmed that its records show the resident has no vulnerabilities.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair of installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation, including basins, sinks and baths.

Summary of events

The resident submitted an online form to the landlord on 12 July 2022 stating that the bathroom hot tap would not turn off fully. She also stated that the bath panel was cracked. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the form on 13 July 2022 and requested further information about the defects from the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on 19 July 2022 to repair the hot tap and the bath panel. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2022 to advise her that it had an outstanding asbestos check that needed to be completed on the property before it could carry out the necessary repairs to the hot tap and the bath panel.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2022 and asked when the reported problem with the hot tap would be dealt with. She also mentioned that the bath tap was running very slowly. The landlord replied on the same day and stated that the property was due to have an asbestos survey, which was overdue, and it could not carry out any non-emergency repairs until the survey had been completed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022 and questioned why the landlord could not carry out the repairs to the wash basin hot tap before completing the asbestos survey. She reiterated that the hot tap was constantly running and there was barely any water coming out of the bath hot tap. She requested the landlord to obtain an update from the asbestos survey contractor.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an asbestos survey of the property on 12 September 2022 and issued the report on 22 September 2022. The report stated that there were no high or medium risk materials found in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022 and stated that she had been waiting for a few months for the wash basin hot tap to be repaired. She explained that the tap was running constantly and consequently the bath hot tap was barely working, which was causing a lot of problems. She stated that the asbestos check had been carried out a month earlier and she was concerned about the cost of the hot water constantly running.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2022 and stated that as the asbestos survey had been completed, it had raised an order for the repairs to the hot tap. The landlord advised the resident that its Planning team would contact her in due course with an appointment date.
The landlord’s records show that it raised an emergency order on 3 November 2022 to repair a leak in the bathroom because the wash basin tap was constantly running. The order stated that water was leaking onto the kitchen strip light. The records show that the work was completed on the same day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2022 and stated that in July 2022 she had reported the hot tap in her bathroom was constantly running and it had only been repaired during week commencing 31 October 2022. She explained that she wanted to complain about the length of time it had taken to repair the tap. The resident requested compensation as she had incurred additional costs for gas due to the boiler continuously running. The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 November 2022 to obtain further details about her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 11 November 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that the hot tap had taken longer than anticipated to repair and it therefore apologised to the resident. The landlord explained that there had been a backlog of repairs, which it had since resolved.
2. The landlord offered the resident £40 of shopping vouchers.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2022 and rejected its offer of the £40 shopping vouchers, which she said did not make up for the additional gas and electricity costs she had incurred. The resident said she had been advised that an asbestos check was required and this took 2 months to be completed. She said she had then waited a further 2 months for the tap to be replaced. The resident advised that she was submitting a complaint because the landlord’s offer did not make up for the stress and inconvenience she had experienced and the extra costs she had incurred.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2023 and requested her to outline the outcome she was seeking in relation to her complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 November 2022 and the resident advised that she had not received the landlord’s email of 18 November 2022. The landlord therefore sent a further copy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2022 and stated the following:
1. She had found the extra costs of gas and electricity difficult to manage, particularly because of the increases in energy costs.
2. She experienced difficulties in running a bath because the bath tap ran very slowly due to the wash basin hot tap constantly running. She stated that this had caused problems because the property did not have a shower and her daughter had Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Autism.
3. The resident suggested a figure of £500 compensation to cover the additional fuel costs and the difficulties and stress caused.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 December 2022 and confirmed its agreement that compensation should be paid. It therefore requested the resident to provide a copy of her heating bills from June to November 2022 so it could check the energy usage.
The resident replied on the same day (5 December 2022) and advised the landlord that she only had a smart meter for electricity and not gas. She explained that she paid for gas on a ‘pay as you go’ basis and therefore did not receive gas bills. She also stated that she had not kept the receipts when she had paid to top up her gas. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 5 December 2022 and stated that the amount of compensation she had requested would cover the additional gas and electricity she had used during the months when the hot tap was running. She also mentioned the “mental impact” she had experienced.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2022 and stated that she had not been using the heating during the period the tap had been running and therefore the landlord would not be able to make a fair comparison in relation to the energy usage. She outlined the reasons she believed the suggested compensation of £500 was reasonable.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2022 to confirm that it would escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and the complaint would be reviewed by a selection of managers, some of whom had not been involved at stage one of the process. The landlord confirmed that the stage 2 meeting would be held during the following week and the landlord would send the stage 2 reply within 20 working days from 7 December 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2022 and reiterated that she was requesting compensation because it had taken the landlord 4 months to repair the hot tap.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2022 and confirmed that the stage 2 meeting would be held on 20 December 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2022 and advised that it was still investigating the complaint and would respond to the resident by 10 January 2023.
On 13 January 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord accepted that the repair had taken longer than anticipated and therefore the landlord offered the resident £100 to compensate her for the increased gas bills due to the delay in repairing the tap.
2. The landlord stated that the resident would need to provide some information from her energy provider if she wanted the landlord to reconsider the amount offered.
3. The landlord said it understood the resident had not previously been able to provide past bills as she was on a pre-payment meter and she had not kept receipts for the money spent on additional gas.
4. The landlord confirmed that it would reconsider the amount offered if the resident was able to request the energy provider to supply copies of her meter readings for the period in question and for the 2 months before the problem with the tap arose.
The landlord sent a further copy of the stage 2 reply on 16 January 2023 as the resident had advised that she had not received it on 13 January 2023.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2023 and expressed her dissatisfaction that it was requesting proof of her increased gas bill. She stated that the tap had been running for 4 months and therefore the cost would be much higher than the £100 offered by the landlord. She stated that the £100 offered did not cover compensation for the stress caused to her. The landlord replied on the same day and reiterated that the resident would need to provide utility bills so that the landlord could make an accurate assessment of the energy usage.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 January 2023 and stated the following:
1. Her hot tap on the wash basin in the bathroom had been faulty and was running for 4 months until it was replaced.
2. When she had initially reported the fault, she was advised that she needed an asbestos check. She stated that she waited 2 months for the asbestos survey and then a further 2 months after the survey for the tap to be replaced.
3. The resident stated that she had experienced a lot of stress and upset as the tap had been constantly running. She stated that it meant the hot tap on the bath was running very slowly and this made bath times very time-consuming for the family. She added that the problem with the tap had caused financial and mental stress and inconvenience and therefore believed that the landlord’s compensation offer should have reflected this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defective hot tap in the bathroom and the amount of compensation it offered after repairing the tap

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the landlord operates a system of repairs by appointment which are arranged with the resident within the relevant priority assigned to the job. Repairs are given one of the following priorities:
1. P99 – 2 Hours for out of hours reports;
2. P1E – 2 Hours;
3. P1 – 24 Hours;
4. P2 – 7 Days;
5. P3 – 30 Days;
6. P4 – 90 Days;
7. P5 – 150 Days.
The Repairs Policy also states: “When tenants report repairs, they will be offered an appointment dependent upon the nature of the repair”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out the circumstances in which it will consider offering financial redress. It says that payments will be made when a person has experienced a delay or has incurred additional costs because of a service failure.
The resident reported to the landlord on 12 July 2022 that the hot tap in the bathroom would not shut off completely. The landlord’s records state that it raised an order on 19 July 2022 to repair the tap (and to address a cracked bath panel). However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2022 to advise her that it could not carry out the repairs until it had completed an outstanding asbestos survey on the property.
The Ombudsman is aware that some bath panels were previously made from asbestos cement and therefore understands the reason the landlord would wish to carry out the asbestos survey before carrying out any work in relation to the bath panel. However, it is unclear from the evidence why the repair to the wash basin tap was dependant on the asbestos survey being completed. It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not arrange to inspect the tap to check whether there were any asbestos risks associated with repairing the tap.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2022 to ask when the hot tap on the wash basin would be repaired. She advised the landlord that it was affecting the bath hot tap, which she said was running very slowly. The landlord replied on the same day and advised the resident that it could not carry out non-emergency repairs in the property until the asbestos survey had been completed.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s response on 8 September 2022 was unreasonable and lacked customer care. It had been over 8 weeks since the resident reported the problem with the wash basin hot tap and had now advised the landlord that it was affecting the bath hot tap. The landlord was aware that the asbestos survey was overdue but gave no indication to the resident of when the survey was due to take place. Furthermore, the landlord did not give any indication that it would seek to expedite the survey so that the tap could be repaired as soon as possible. This prompted the resident to write to the landlord again on 9 September 2022 to question why the tap repairs were linked to the asbestos survey. She asked the landlord to check when the asbestos survey was due to be carried out.
The landlord’s contractor completed the asbestos survey on 12 September 2022 and produced the report on 22 September 2022. It had therefore taken 2 months following the resident’s report of the defective hot tap for the landlord to carry out the asbestos survey. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence explaining the reasons for the delay in carrying out the asbestos survey. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had taken 2 months to do the asbestos survey when it was aware that the resident’s hot tap was running constantly and the survey had to be done before the tap could be repaired.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022 to ask when the tap would be repaired as she was aware that the asbestos survey had been completed. It was unreasonable that the asbestos survey had been completed on 12 September 2022 and over a month later the landlord had not taken steps to repair the hot tap. The resident had emphasised to the landlord on 9 September 2022 that the hot tap was constantly running and this was also affecting the bath tap, which was running very slowly. The landlord was therefore aware that there was some urgency attached to carrying out the repair.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2022 and advised that it had raised an order for the repairs to the hot tap. The landlord advised the resident that its Planning team would contact her in due course to book an appointment. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to book an appointment. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2022 to report that water was leaking onto the light fitting and this prompted the landlord to raise an emergency repair.
Given the time the resident had been waiting for the repair, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not contact the resident to book an appointment after it had raised the order to repair the tap in October 2022. This was contrary to the landlord’s Repairs Policy which states that the landlord will offer an appointment when the resident reports a repair.
The repair was completed on 3 November 2022 after the resident had reported that water was leaking from the tap onto a strip light below the bathroom. The landlord had raised an emergency job on 3 November 2022 and the contractor had attended on the same day. It was appropriate that the landlord had dealt with the leak as an emergency as it was affecting the electrics below. However, it was unreasonable that it had taken almost 4 months to complete the repair.
The evidence shows that the resident had contacted the landlord on various occasions to make it clear that the wash basin hot tap was constantly running and it was affecting the hot tap to the bath. The evidence show that the landlord was not proactive in arranging for the repair to be carried out and relied on the resident chasing the repair before acting. This was unreasonable as it was incumbent on the landlord to keep track of the repair to ensure it was carried out within a reasonable timescale. The following are examples of where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the evidence indicates the landlord was not proactive:
1. The asbestos survey was carried out on 12 September, which was the day after the resident had chased the landlord about the survey.
2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 October 2022 to advise that it had raised an order to repair the tap, which was the day after the resident had written to the landlord to chase the repair.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found various failings in the landlord’s handling of the reported defect to the wash basin hot tap in the bathroom. These failings can be summarised as follows:
1. It took 2 months following the resident’s report of the defective tap for the landlord to carry out the asbestos survey, despite being aware that the tap could not be repaired until the survey had been done.
2. Despite the asbestos survey being overdue, the landlord did not use its reply on 8 September 2022 to advise the resident when the survey would take place and did not give any indication that it would expedite the survey so that the tap could be repaired as soon as possible.
3. The landlord took over a month following the asbestos survey to contact the resident on 22 October 2022 to say it had raised an order to repair the tap. Furthermore, it only contacted the resident after the resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022.
4. After advising the resident on 22 October 2022 that it had raised an order to repair the tap, the landlord did not contact the resident to book an appointment.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one reply that the repair had taken longer than it should have done. It apologised and explained that this had been due to a backlog of repairs which had since been cleared. It offered the resident £40 of shopping vouchers as compensation for the delay. The offer of vouchers was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, which states: “We may make a goodwill gesture where appropriate in some circumstances to accompany an apology. This may include shopping vouchers, flowers, or replacement of goods”.
At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord offered a further £100 compensation to recognise the additional costs in gas usage incurred by the resident. The landlord also made it clear that it was prepared to reconsider the amount offered if the resident provided evidence of the increased gas usage in the form of previous gas bills.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delay in carrying out the repair, apologising and offering compensation. The landlord also acted fairly by offering to reconsider the amount of compensation if the resident was able to provide gas bills showing the increased gas usage. Although the resident had a pre-payment gas meter and therefore did not receive gas bills, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek some evidence on which it could base its calculations of the increased gas usage.
In the absence of any evidence to show the increased energy used by the resident during the period in question, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s offer of £100 was reasonable to cover the additional energy costs. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer of £100 plus £40 shopping vouchers was insufficient to put things right in terms of the inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident by the delay in repairing the hot tap. The emails and phone calls from the resident show that she was very concerned that the hot tap was constantly running and she had advised the landlord that it was affecting the bath hot tap, which was making it difficult to run baths.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was service failure by the landlord as the landlord made an offer of compensation but it did not reflect the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 to the resident, which this Service considers reasonable to put things right for the inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Complaints Handling Procedure states: “At the point of escalation (to stage 2), we will need to understand what issues remain unresolved and specifically, what desired outcome you are looking for”.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that was in operation at the time of the resident’s complaint stated: “Landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2022 and explained that she wanted to complain about the length of time it had taken to repair the hot tap. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 11 November 2022, which was 4 working days after the resident had made her complaint. The landlord had therefore replied within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2022 and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2022 and requested her to outline the outcome she was seeking in relation to her complaint. This was reasonable as it was in line with its procedure, which stated that it would need to understand the outcome the resident wanted. The resident responded to the landlord on 23 November 2022 and outlined the outcomes she wanted from the complaints process.
The landlord exchanged further emails with the resident on 5 December 2022 in which the landlord accepted that compensation should be paid and therefore requested the resident to provide copies of her heating bills. The resident advised that she was unable to provide the bills because she had a pre-payment meter. It was reasonable that the landlord had attempted to resolve the complaint by accepting it would pay compensation for the reported increases in the resident’s gas costs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2022 to confirm it would escalate the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 13 January 2023, which was 38 working days after the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint. Although this was outside its 20-working day target for stage 2 complaints, it had written to the resident on 16 and 22 December 2022 to keep her advised of progress. The view of this Service is that the landlord therefore replied to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable timescale and took steps to keep the resident advised of progress in relation to her complaint.
Overall, the landlord’s complaints handling was reasonable as it replied to the stage one and two complaints within reasonable timescales, kept the resident advised of progress in relation to the complaints and attempted to resolve the complaint by apologising and offering compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a defective hot tap in the bathroom and the amount of compensation it offered after repairing the tap.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

Although the landlord made an offer of compensation, the amount offered did not reflect the detriment to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord replied to the stage one and two complaints within reasonable timescales, kept the resident advised of progress in relation to the complaints and attempted to resolve the complaint by apologising and offering compensation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £150.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident the £40 shopping vouchers offered in its stage one reply and the £100 offered at stage 2 if these sums have not already been paid.