City of Lincoln Council (202416961)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416961

City of Lincoln Council

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and a lack of heating and hot water.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. Her tenancy began on 2 September 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident is a wheelchair user and the landlord advised she is a priority for repairs. The landlord used contractors to carry out its gas and heating repairs at the time of the complaint, for ease both will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report.
On the 9 June 2024, the resident reported an issue with her boiler “banging and shaking”. The landlord attended on the 10 June 2024, fixed a faulty ball valve in the feed and expansion tank, and left the heating system working fully. On the 23 June 2024, a carbon monoxide alarm was activated, an out-of-hours engineer attended the property and found that the thermistor was faulty. A new part was ordered on 24 June 2024, and an appointment was booked in for 27 June 2024 to attend and fit the replacement part.
The resident made a complaint on 25 June 2024, she said she had not had a working boiler since 23 June 2024, and she had been advised that an engineer would attend on 27 June 2024. She said she had carers daily, had no hot water and thought it was “disgraceful” to wait 5 days for a part.
On 1 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which included:
1. It clarified that the boiler was on the list for replacement in 2020/2021, but the resident had not responded to any correspondence about this.
2. It had attended on 27 June 2024 but was unable to carry out the repair. It said this was due to the age of the boiler, the part was “encrusted”, and it could not remove it. It therefore had to condemn the boiler.
3. It had arranged an installation survey to take place on 28 June 2024, but this was cancelled by the resident.
4. It did not agree with the resident’s complaint as parts for the boiler, due to age were harder to source and had longer wait times.
5. It concluded by encouraging the resident to rebook the installation survey so it could replace her boiler.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2025, she said she did not agree with the outcome of her complaint and felt the landlord had placed the blame on her. She said:
1. She did not receive any correspondence about a heating upgrade.
2. Her carer had cancelled her appointment due to her having a fall and going to hospital.
3. She had been advised that all radiators and pipes would require replacement, her furniture would need to go into storage and following the work she would be responsible to decorate.
4. She said she did not have the “excess cash” to redecorate and lived on her pension.
The resident also contacted her local MP at this time.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 July 2024. This included:
1. It confirmed it had left 3 cards at the property on 12 August 2020, 8 January 2021, and 1 February 2021.
2. It provided a copy of a letter dated 26 March 2021 which advised if no contact had been made by 9 April 2021, the upgrade would be recorded as refused.
3. It confirmed it had received the email from the resident’s carer and advised it had not received contact once the resident had returned to the address as the email stated.
4. It said the level of disruption could not be determined until it had completed a survey however it would be kept to a minimum. It confirmed the installation would take no longer than a day and if decoration was required it would provide a voucher.
5. It confirmed that the heating installation survey had been booked for 22 July 2024.
6. It concluded by saying that it did not agree with the resident’s complaint as it had made attempts to book a survey to replace the system as soon as possible.
The heating installation survey did not go ahead on 22 July 2024; the landlord recorded this as cancelled. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 July 2024. She said she thought it was “disgusting” that the landlord had blamed her throughout the complaints process, and she felt the landlord had intentionally broken her boiler. She also said she did not want the same contractors to install a new boiler. In recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised she felt “bullied” and “victimised” by the landlord.

Events following the landlord’s internal complaints process

Evidence has been seen that demonstrated the landlord continued to attempt to arrange for the installation survey to take place throughout August 2024 and September 2024. Its records show the survey to have been completed on 18 November 2024, and the install was completed on 25 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted there was a disagreement between the resident and landlord about the heating upgrade being refused in 2021, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2024 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Heating repair

The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair policy state that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the installations provided for heating and for the supply of water and sanitation. The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for responding to repairs. It says:
1. Priority repairs should be completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs should be completed within 3 days.
3. All other repairs will be completed within 100 days.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident first reported an issue with the boiler on 9 June 2024, and it attended on 10 June 2024. This was a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to attend and within its policy timescales. Although the resident has stated that issues with the boiler then arose, there is no record of this being reported to the landlord until 23 June 2024. The landlord attended the next day, although the resident states this was outside the 24 hours in its policy, it is believed to have been a reasonable response.
It is following this where the resident’s concerns began. Part of the resident’s complaint related to having to wait 5 days to have a part fitted and be left with no hot water for this amount of time. The landlord’s explanation for this delay in its stage 1 response was reasonable, it said that due to the age of the boiler parts were harder to source and had longer wait times. It is not clear, however, if the landlord offered an alternative heating source to the resident at this time, although it is noted, it was during the summer months so the need for heating would have been minimal. The landlord noted that it offered a hot water tank, but the resident refused this. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that the landlord did not offer any other form of heating or hot water. Without fully detailed records of the discussions that took place at the time, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether the landlord acted in a reasonable manner or not at this initial stage.
The resident raised concerns with cost of decoration as a reason for refusing the works to go ahead in her escalation request on 6 July 2024. The landlord advised, in its stage 2 response, it could not know the level of disruption without a survey taking place but offered vouchers to help toward the cost of decoration if required. As the landlord had not carried out any work at this time, it was not unreasonable for it to respond in this way, and it could have reviewed its position once works had taken place.
In relation to the length of time taken to replace the system. It is evident that the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control due to the resident’s disagreement with the proposed works. Overall, it took 5 months for the heating system to be replaced. It is apparent from the internal communications provided that the landlord demonstrated a genuine concern about the impact on the resident of not replacing the heating system heading into the winter months. During this time, it made attempts to arrange a heating installation survey with the resident, this included an evident collaboration between departments and visiting the resident to discuss her concerns.
It is noted that the resident made comments regarding the landlord’s behaviour and felt the boiler had been intentionally broken, however there is no evidence to support the landlord acted in an unreasonable manner at any time. The landlord ultimately relied on the opinions of its qualified contractors and acted reasonably by attempting to replace the heating system once it had been condemned.
Given the vulnerability concerns surrounding the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord chose to continue with its attempts to address the repair issues at the property. It is noted however, that in communications with the Ombudsman, the resident disputes that the landlord did attempt to address the issue. When conducting investigations, the Ombudsman relies on evidence to demonstrate what actions a landlord took. Evidence has been provided of email communications arranging a survey with the resident, which the landlord also confirmed in its stage 2 response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has responded reasonably to the reports of no heating or hot water at the property throughout its complaints process.
The Ombudsman has sympathy with the resident that the period for which the repairs were required would have caused inconvenience, however there is no evidence the length of time the works took equate to maladministration on the part of the landlord. The above demonstrates the landlord acted generally in accordance with its policies and made reasonable attempts to arrange the repairs.
In summary, the landlord provided sufficient evidence of its attempts to resolve the issues and demonstrated that once it had completed a survey, and secured access it promptly installed a new heating system. Taking all the above into account the Ombudsman finds there has been no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler and a lack of heating and hot water.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider its record keeping practises, with particular focus on customer interactions where actions are discussed, ensuring outcomes and offers of temporary measures can be recorded.