Peabody Trust (202231396)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231396

Peabody Trust

28 February 2025

Amended May 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the taps in her property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a flat, which began in 1997.
  2. The resident has explained that after her kitchen was updated/renewed and a new combi boiler was fitted in about 2016, she has found it difficult to operate the taps at a safe temperature. She has described the water as suddenly running scalding hot, which she says has burnt her hands. The resident has told us that the hot water only runs at a safely cool temperature if she leaves it to run for an excessive time, which she says has impacted her water bills. The resident told us that her water company had contacted her to see if there was a problem such as a leak, due to the high amount of water she was using.
  3. The resident has told us that her neighbour had a similar renewal of the kitchen and has not experienced the same problems.
  4. The landlord has confirmed that it has record of the resident first reporting an issue to it on 22 October 2018, and again in March 2019, July 2020, November 2021 and May 2022.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it (or its contractor) attended each time, carried out investigations, and noted that the system was working before leaving. In response to the repair request in 2021, the landlord raised a job to install a filling loop in the hot water system. Its records show that when the operative turned up to do this, the resident told them no repairs were needed, and refused them access to the property.
  6. In February 2023 the landlord fitted some new parts to the hot water system, including a hot water sensor. In April 2023 the landlord noted that an operative attended, and advised the resident that the boiler “maintains” the water temperature, and that once she turned on the tap, the boiler would get the water up to temperature quickly. They told her the water would come out of the taps hotter at the beginning if the heating was already on. They noted that they had left the boiler setting on 1.
  7. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in mid-April 2023. It issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 April 2023. It:
    1. Acknowledged that the resident had advised it the problems had started when her new kitchen was installed 7 years previously. It said it would only investigate the events of the last 6 months, and while it could see the resident had reported the issue with the water prior to that, its investigation would cover events from September 2022. It noted that after that, the first report from the resident was in January 2023;
    2. Noted that the repairs that had been carried out to the hot water had “been short lived” and had not resolved the issue;
    3. Said that its gas contractor had attended on 26 April 2023, and the resident had confirmed that the issue was now resolved;
    4. Said it had reminded its contractors to report back to it in cases where there had been several visits and no resolution, so that it could “explore other options”;
    5. Offered the resident £200 compensation for her time and trouble, in recognition of the time taken to complete the repair and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  8. The landlord logged a stage 2 complaint on 26 July 2023, and spoke to the resident.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response letter on 10 August 2023. It:
    1. Confirmed it had paid the resident £250 compensation at stage 1;
    2. Apologised for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2, which it explained was because its repairs team had not forwarded her concerns in a timely way;
    3. Advised that the boiler appeared to be working correctly, and that the “primary issue” appeared to be the way the resident was using the boiler. Its contractors had not found the tap water had reached unsafe temperatures;
    4. Said that in the most recent visit, its contractor had tried to explain to the resident why the water got to temperatures the resident felt were too hot, and how she could avoid this. It acknowledged that the resident was vulnerable, and it should have explained this to her sooner;
    5. Apologised for the standard of its communication with the resident, and said it would send one of its own gas engineers to inspect the boiler and confirm whether any further repairs were needed;
    6. Explained that it was unable to compensate the resident for ill health/ medical conditions through its complaints process;
    7. Offered the resident an additional £600 compensation, bringing its total offer to £850, made up of:
      1. £250 for time and trouble paid at stage 1;
      2. £100 because “more guidance could have been provided” from its contractor sooner;
      3. £100 because it had not offered a second opinion to the resident;
      4. £150 for “not always considering the impact” of the situation on the resident given her vulnerabilities;
      5. £50 for the delay in logging the complaint;
      6. £50 because the resident needed to approach us at stage 1;
      7. £50 because its delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 led the resident to contact us again.
    8. Said that it would consider further compensation if, when its engineer attended to offer a second opinion, they identified anything that contradicted the findings of its contractors;
    9. Apologised that its service had fallen short and set out some general improvements it was making to its complaints and repairs processes.
  10. In late August 2023 the landlord asked for its “independent” gas engineer to attend to assess and advise regarding any issues with the boiler that could be affecting the regulation of the water temperature to the taps.
  11. In early September 2023, the landlord noted that the number of repairs raised for the same issue since 2018 had gone into “double digits”. It acknowledged that the resident was vulnerable and expressed desire to resolve the situation “once and for all” for her and asked its contractor for advice. The resident had suggested lowering the temperature in the hot water system, but the contractor advised the landlord that it was not “achievable” to set the water in the system to 30°C. Instead, they identified that “the best solution” would be to fit thermostatic mixing valves (TMVs) to regulate the temperature of the water to the taps. It advised the landlord that the resident had not agreed to this suggestion.
  12. The landlord’s records show that it made several appointments to fit TMVs between January and December 2024, however the resident did not agree to this work being done. The resident has explained to us that this is because she lacks confidence that the TMV will resolve the issue and is concerned about risks from legionella.

After complaints procedure completion.

  1. The resident contacted the Service in February 2025 and advised that the landlord identified that the boiler issues were due to a loose wire in the boiler’s motherboard, which was not identified or repaired during multiple earlier visits despite repeated reports.

Assessment and findings

Relevant guidance

  1. The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) provides guidance on the risk from scalds due to hot tap water. It warns that it is dangerous for tap water to be above 60°C, and recommends that hot water should be set no more than 60°C in kitchens, 41°C for hand basins, and 46°C for baths.
  2. The HHSRS also warns of the dangers of contaminated water, including the risks from legionella. It sets out the importance of ensuring compliance with the relevant British Standards and Water Supply Regulations to guard against contamination in water systems.
  3. The Health and Safety Executive provides useful information about safe water storage temperatures in relation to legionella. It advises that water should either be stored at temperatures below 20°C or above 60°C. It additionally recommends that where TMVs are fitted, the water supply to them should be at 50°C within a minute of running the water.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and associated complaint

  1. The resident raised concerns across several years, back to 2018. While there appeared to be quite significant gaps between these, the resident was in touch with the landlord at least once a year. This should have prompted it to examine the underlying issues much sooner. It was unhelpful that in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would not examine events beyond the previous 6 months.
  2. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it took an unreasonable amount of time to investigate and identify a solution to the matter. For this, it has offered the resident compensation, an apology, and a commitment to resolve the matter. This included arranging one of its own engineers to attend, to give a “second opinion”. These were appropriate and proportionate ways to put things right.
  3. Following the visit from the engineer, it was confirmed that the best solution to the issues the resident was reporting was for TMVs to be installed. It is disappointing, therefore, that this work has not been completed a year and a half later.
  4. In our experience TMVs are a commonly used part, aimed at reducing the risk of scalds. The way they work is to mix the hot and cold water supplies to a safer temperature before the water comes out of the tap, and to prevent sudden surges in temperature.
  5. The resident has explained to us that she was concerned about risks from legionella if the water is too cool, and also that if the hot water in the system was set at its current temperature from the boiler, she could not guarantee that the water coming out of the tap would not burn her.
  6. It is reasonable for the resident to have concerns and questions, as a ‘lay person’ rather than someone with professional knowledge of hot water systems. It was understandable that the resident lacked confidence, when considering the history of repair attempts across the previous years. The landlord also acknowledged that it was aware the resident needed additional support due to vulnerabilities and disability, several times.
  7. While the Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s report of skin damage and psychological stress linked to prolonged exposure to excessively hot water, issues involving personal injury or medical impact, such as swelling, cracked skin, or burning, fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit. These are serious matters and may be more appropriately considered through a legal process or by the landlord’s insurer. Therefore, the resident may want to seek legal advice or submit a claim directly through the landlord’s insurance provider, who is better placed to assess these aspects.
  8. We would have expected to see more effort from the landlord to check why the resident had not agreed to the works, explain to her the way the TMVs would work, and to acknowledge and address her questions in full.
  9. It is evident that the failures in this case were around a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the resident. The resident has also explained to us that she is concerned that if she agrees to the TMVs being installed and they do not solve the problem, then the landlord will not be obligated to do anything further. Given the importance set out in the HHSRS regarding the safety risks from scalds due to hot water, we would expect the landlord to commit to the resident to continue investigating the issue until a lasting solution is identified.
  10. It is always preferable to carry out works with the consent and cooperation of residents. However, we observe that the tenancy agreement gives the landlord the option of pursuing appropriate legal avenues to gain access to carry out certain works, such as those aimed at resolving health and safety risks in the property.
  11. The landlord has offered compensation that went some way towards recognising the failings in this case and the resulting impact on the resident. However, given the time that has elapsed without resolution to the underlying problems in this case, that the matter has not been ‘put right’ following the end of the complaints procedure, that the landlord has not explored why the resident has refused the works, and the significant distress the resident has experienced, we consider the cumulative impact of the landlord’s actions to amount to service failure and have awarded £250.
  12. While the Ombudsman has been advised that the landlord successfully resolved the issue, the fact that this took several years, despite ongoing communication from the resident, is concerning. The resident has rightly highlighted that multiple earlier visits did not lead to resolution, and, in some cases, she was informed there was no fault despite presenting consistent evidence to the contrary. This pattern further supports that there was a service failure and a breakdown in communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the taps in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks’ pay the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the serious impact and failures in communication, coordination, and repair management.

Recommendation

  1. Given the residents’ concerns that the unresolved boiler fault led to increases water usage and higher bills, the landlord should contact the resident to request copies of her water bills covering the period in question. Upon receipt of this evidence, the landlord should review whether it is appropriate to offer further redress or reimbursement in relation to the increased utility costs.