London Borough of Hounslow (202322192)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322192

London Borough of Hounslow

14 March 2025


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:
    1. Reports of a loss of hot water.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy agreement which began on 6 October 1997.
  2. On 20 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that he had no hot water. A plumber attended and found that there was no issue with the boiler but was advised that there had been a recent issue with a burst water pipe nearby. The plumber noted that the resident was directed back to the landlord to book a further repair.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 June 2023 as nobody from the landlord had contacted him and he remained without hot water. The resident said that despite his requests, the landlord would not treat the repair as urgent. He said he had spoken to the complaint team but nobody had responded to his concerns.
  4. On 3 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to cancel the outstanding work order, as he had arranged a repair himself. The exact date of the repair is not clear but the evidence provided narrows this down to between 25 June 2023 and 3 July 2023.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 27 July 2023. Within its response, the landlord said it should have attended within 5 days and acknowledged its failure to arrange an appointment. The landlord offered a payment of £50 to address the service failing.
  6. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 2 August 2023. He said he was unhappy with the time taken to provide the stage 1 response and that the landlord had not compensated him for the £150 that the repair had cost him.
  7. On 29 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response and partially upheld the complaint. The landlord accepted that there was a service failing in the time taken to provide the stage 1 response. The landlord reiterated that the type of repair was not considered an emergency but acknowledged its failure to take any steps to carry out the repair. It said that it had asked for evidence of the charges incurred in the private repair carried out but it had not received anything from the resident. It maintained its offer of £50 compensation for its failures and said that it would consider the charges incurred if the resident could provide evidence of them for review.
  8. The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 27 September 2023 as they remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. They asked that the landlord accept responsibility for the repair and pay for the private repair that was carried out.    

Assessment and findings

Reports of a loss of hot water

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s website directed residents to a contractor partner for all heating and hot water repairs. The resident called the contractor on 20 June 2023 and it attended the same day. The operative’s notes said that there was not a problem with the boiler and directed the resident to contact the landlord for a repair.
  2. The landlord raised a works order on 20 June 2023 for the loss of hot water. At that time, the landlord’s repair policy classed a total loss of water heating as an “urgent repair” with a timeframe of 3 working days. However, its website at the time said that an urgent repair should be completed in 5 days.  
  3. It is understandable that given the lack of access to hot water, the resident would consider this an emergency repair. However, none of the landlord’s policies or reference material noted that it would be considered an emergency repair. On this basis, it was reasonable that the landlord said it would not be considered an emergency repair.
  4. Although the landlord did set the resident’s expectations accordingly, it is clear that it then failed to take any action to progress the works order it raised. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it made no attempt to attend or arrange attendance. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to meet the set timeframe for the required repair. Its failure to act meant that the resident continued to have no access to hot water, causing further distress and inconvenience which is evident from his complaint. 
  5. The works order was cancelled when the resident contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023. The resident advised the landlord that he had arranged the repair himself privately and paid for this. Within his complaint, the resident requested that the landlord provide a payment of £150 as this is what he said he paid for the repair.
  6. It is understandable that the resident felt he should not have to pay for repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord did acknowledge the cost of the repair within the initial complaint response but it did not make any reference to those costs being paid back to the resident. Instead, it offered £50 as a service failure payment. Although the landlord’s offer was reasonable in addressing the service failing, it should have also addressed the avoidable cost incurred by the resident.
  7. During the stage 2 investigation and within the landlord’s response, it asked for evidence of the repair costs that the resident had incurred. However, the resident said that he did not obtain an invoice for these works. It is the view of the Ombudsman that it was reasonable for the landlord to request such evidence for consideration before making any payment to the resident. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be considered a failure by the landlord that it did not provide a payment.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord failed to act on the repair request made by the resident and this left the resident with no hot water. Its lack of oversight of the works order meant that it failed to identify that it was outside of the timeframe set out in its policy.
  9. However, the landlord did address this service failing when it offered a payment of £50 compensation in its stage 1 response. This amount is in a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a service failure that had an impact on a resident over a short duration.
  10. Although the landlord has not provided a payment for the repair that the resident arranged, it did make a reasonable offer to review any evidence of the costs that he incurred. Having considered this element of the complaint, the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord offered reasonable redress for the reports of a loss of hot water.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said that it would acknowledge correspondence and advise how this would be managed. After the resident raised his complaint on 25 June 2023, it took until 6 July 2023 for it to acknowledge the complaint. Although the policy does not specify a time for the acknowledgement of a complaint, the time taken was excessive in this instance. Had it reviewed the complaint sooner, it could have identified that it related to an outstanding works order and taken separate action to have the repair arranged.
  2. The complaint policy also said that the landlord should provide a response to a stage 1 complaint within 15 working days. However, in this instance it took 28 working days, almost twice the time set out in the policy. This is a service failing by the landlord which added to the time and trouble experienced by the resident. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the delays were due to staff shortages and a spike in complaints. Although it is understandable that landlords can experience such issues, the complaint policy says that any delays would be communicated to the resident. In this instance, it failed to do so.
  3. The landlord provided a reasonable response to the stage 1 complaint as it acknowledged its failure to complete or schedule the required repair. Within its response, it said that the resident had the repair carried out on 21 June 2023. However, this is not consistent with the resident’s complaint which said that he was still without hot water on 25 June 2023. This shows a lack of investigation or understanding of the initial complaint.
  4. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint in a reasonable timeframe and failed to communicate the likelihood of the delay during the stage 1 process. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should send a written apology to the resident. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £50 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 it offered through the complaints process for the service failing relating to the loss of hot water. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.