London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202431306)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing problems with the loss of hot water supply in her property. She and one of her children both have long term health conditions. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property
   2. maladministration in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no hot water at the property

4. The landlord acknowledged failings during the complaints process and compensated appropriately. However, the issue remains unresolved at the time of this report. It failed to consider whether it should make adjustments in its approach when it knew there were vulnerable people impacted by the issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged significant failures in its handling of the complaint. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to these failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. From 13 September 2023 to 22 January 2024, the resident reported a loss of hot water to the landlord 14 times. Its responses to these reports were inconsistent. On some occasions it took action to try and resolve the problem but this was not effective as the problem continued. It missed other reports entirely, neglecting to respond or attend when it agreed. The resident made her complaint after not having any hot water for over a month. Further reports were made on a monthly basis while she waited for the stage 1 response in May 2024. The landlord did not resolve the issue during this time.
7. The landlord acknowledged a fault with the communal heating system which affected all properties in the block from Summer 2023 until it was reinstated in January 2024. It was appropriate for it to note the impact this had on the resident and that it had been repaired. It made clear that ongoing issues with her hot water supply were as a result of issues with the valves and cylinder into her property. However, it did not give a clear diagnosis of the specific cause of the problem. This caused her distress as it did not reassure her that it knew how to solve the problem.
8. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that its approach to the repairs was inconsistent and failed to fix the issue. It repeated the same approach to the issue, flushing the system regularly. This was not appropriate as it knew flushing the system was not providing a lasting repair. It did not show that it was aiming to deliver a ‘right first time’ service as its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will. It also identified issues with its contractors but did not take action to monitor their effectiveness or work quality, as its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will, until 18 January 2024. The resident faced significant distress, time and trouble as a result of its failings.
9. The resident continued to report issues with her hot water supply following her stage 2 escalation request. She said that she was facing higher expenses because she had to run an immersion heater when her supply stopped working. The landlord continued to attend following reports between September and October 2024 but actions it took failed to resolve the issue.
10. The landlord acknowledged further failings in it stage 2 response including poor communication and record keeping. It increased its offer of compensation and set a target date of 14 November 2024 for the completion of repairs to the hot water system. It was positive that it reflected on the ongoing impact the issue was having and set out a timescale for repair. It said it found it had offered reasonable redress by increasing the compensation to the resident.
11. However, the landlord failed to provide a lasting repair by the target date it had set out in its stage 2 response. Evidence shows that further appointments for planned work were cancelled or ineffective and the issue remained unresolved. At the time of writing, both the resident and landlord have confirmed the issue remains unresolved. She has faced ongoing distress and inconvenience as a result of its failings. Its response cannot be considered as reasonable redress.
12. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy does not set out a timescale for complex repairs. It does say that residents will be informed if it requires more time to complete a repair outside of the usual 20 working day timescale for routine repairs. The landlord’s inconsistent communication with the resident did not demonstrate that it was trying to keep her informed of the timescale of the repairs as its policy says it will.
13. The landlord installed an immersion heater on 7 February 2024 to help provide the resident with hot water while she had issues with her supply. This was positive and showed it was trying to offer an alternative supply while the issues were ongoing. However, the heater did not provide a long lasting, fit-for-purpose solution as its Responsive Repairs Policy says it will.  She said that the use of the immersion caused a significant increase in cost to her and was unreliable as it could not sustain a sufficient supply of hot water for the whole family.
14. Throughout the complaint and following its completion, the resident mentioned having to regularly rely on the immersion heater to provide some hot water. The landlord did not reply to her concerns about the increased cost of running the heater in either of its responses.
15. The resident repeatedly mentioned through her reports and complaints that the issue was impacting vulnerable people in the household. She identified her own health concerns as well as her child’s long term health condition. She said that extended periods without hot water had been made more difficult and put them at risk as a result of their health conditions. She asked the landlord to consider this when dealing with the repairs. It failed to respond to these concerns in its responses or communication with her at any stage. This was not appropriate.
16. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.
17. The landlord didn’t demonstrate that it considered the impact on the health of the resident and her family in its actions relating to repairs. In its Responsive Repairs Policy, the landlord says it will consider reducing the time taken on repairs for disabled customers where health may be affected. It was unreasonable that it didn’t consider changing its approach when the resident repeatedly referred to the negative impact on the health of vulnerable people in the household. It failed to show it was empathising with her, missing frequent opportunities to offer support and understanding. She faced ongoing distress as a result of its failure to consider its approach to support for the resident.
18. It is appropriate that more compensation is ordered to reflect the ongoing impact on the resident and her family. She continues to rely on an immersion heater to provide her with limited hot water when the main supply fails, resulting in higher costs and inconvenience to her family. The landlord has failed to provide a lasting solution and has not given a clear timescale for when it will resolve the issue. It has not made any adjustments or offered additional support in light of vulnerabilities in the household.

19. The landlord’s Complaints Policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (“the Code.”)
20. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 66 working days (31 January 2024 to 3 May 2024) which was not compliant with the 10 days allowed in the Code
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 110 working days (9 June 2024 to 11 November 2024) which was not compliant with the 20 days allowed by the Code
21. The landlord acknowledged its significant failings in complaint handling. This was positive and showed a reflective approach to the process, accepting responsibility as its Complaints Policy says it will. It accepted that delays in responding and a lack of updates on the progress of the complaint would have caused the resident frustration.
22. However, it is not clear that the landlord used the findings of the complaint process to learn. In an email following the process, the resident identified ongoing issues with its communication and record keeping, as well as an ongoing failure to acknowledge the vulnerable people in her household.  It did not demonstrate an intention to identify opportunities for learning by working with its service areas as its Complaint Policy says it will.
23. In addition, the landlord’s record keeping for the complaint was poor. Due to staff changes, it allocated a new investigator to the case after the stage 1 response. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 September 2024 asking her to clarify where it had reached in the resolution of the complaint since its stage 1 response and what work remained outstanding. It was inappropriate for the landlord to rely on the resident to update it on the progress of the complaint. It did not reassure her that it was conducting an adequate investigation.
24. The landlord offered a total of £180 in compensation for complaint handling failures across both stages of the complaint. This was not sufficient. The resident faced over 20 weeks of delays in total beyond the response deadlines set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Its Compensation and Refund Guidance says it will follow our guidance on time and trouble from ongoing complaints. Given the severity of the issue and the ongoing time and trouble she faced, an increased offer of compensation has been ordered.

Learning

25. The landlord acknowledged a series of failings in its investigation which was positive and showed a desire to learn from the process. However, it did not show it had taken opportunities to apply its learning. It could reflect on what actions it could have taken once it completed the stage 2 response to improve outcomes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord was aware of issues with its complaint handling throughout. It could review its existing systems and procedures to ensure robust records are available in future.

Communication

27. The landlord identified poor communication in its handling of the repairs and complaint. It could consider agreeing a schedule for regularly contacting residents when they have reported an issue.