Medway Council (202423533)

Background

1. The landlord replaced the bathroom in the property in July 2024, but the resident returned home to find she had no hot water. She later complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports. It is unclear if the landlord was aware the resident was awaiting a kidney transplant.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A boiler repair.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a boiler repair.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a boiler repair

5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to complete the repair within the 3 days stipulated in the right to repair scheme and offered sufficient compensation for this and its communication failures. We have therefore found the landlord to have offered reasonable redress within its complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. There was a small delay in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling. However, it otherwise managed the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policies and procedures. It provided clear evidence that all complaint issues raised by the resident were addressed at both stages of its complaint process.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we have not considered

7. We cannot consider complaints which are raised prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has complained to us that there was debris from the work left outside the property and that she was unable to close the bathroom door. These events occurred after the landlord’s complaint procedure. Our investigation will therefore only consider the events covered in the landlord’s complaint responses in relation to the boiler repair.
8. The resident told us that the lack of hot water caused her stress and affected her mental health. 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. We have not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of a boiler repair

9. The landlord didnot dispute it was responsible for the boiler repair as outlined in its repairs policy. It acknowledged its responsibility under the right to repair scheme of restoring hot water to the property in the summer months within 3 working days of it being reported.
10. The resident reported the boiler fault to the landlord on 8 July 2024. It attended on 9 and 11 July 2024 and found it needed to order new parts during both visits. It completed the repair on 12 July 2024. While this was 1 day outside the right to repair timescales, sourcing the necessary parts was outside its control.
11. The landlord apologised for the boiler repair delay and offered the resident £25 compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy states where it fails to complete a qualifying repair under the right to repair scheme it must pay the resident £10 for the first day and £2 per day after this. Its offer of £25 exceeded its policy and its explanation for the delay was a fair response.
12. The resident said she told the onsite contractors on several occasions that the boiler was not working, and they instructed her to contact the gas team to arrange a repair. The tenancy agreement supports this, as it requires the resident to report repair issues. Although she may have expected the onsite team to fix the problem, a specialist boiler inspection was needed, so their response was fair.
13. The resident said she called the contractors call centre between 3 and 5 July 2024 but could not get through until 8 July 2024 when she reported the repair. In the landlord’s complaint response, it asked her to provide evidence of the failed call attempts. It checked its call system and found no calls from her during the period in question. It asked her to confirm the number she tried to call so it could check this was correct. Its attempts to investigate her claims were fair and thorough.
14. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it told the resident it would only be considering any delay from 8 July 2024 when it received her repair request. It apologised if its communication with her was unclear when telling her to call its gas team for a boiler repair. This was a reasonable response as it evidenced it trying to obtain the information which could help it consider the period from 3 to 7 July 2024.
15. The landlord apologised for not adapting its communication after the resident asked to be contacted only by email. It said it believed this instruction applied only to her complaint. If the landlord was unsure, it should have clarified this with the resident and ensured all staff were aware. Its failure to do so caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
16. It’s offer of £75 compensation for its communication failures and the learning shown was a reasonable response. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, learning from outcomes and putting things right.
17. We do not dispute the resident’s statement that she provided the landlord with information about her vulnerabilities and communication needs prior to the bathroom and boiler works. However, we have seen no evidence of this communication. She told it again during the complaints process and it confirmed it recorded this information for future contact.
18. The landlord has shown learning by apologising and making improvements in relation to its communication with the resident. The landlord’s compensation offer was fair and in line with our remedies guidance for service failure where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided.
19. Given the landlord’s actions, we have found that it provided reasonable redress for the failings identified in this complaint.

20. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.
21. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales set out in the Code. It will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
22. We cannot see the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in July 2024. It provided its response 12 working days after receipt. While this was 2 working days outside its policy timescale, it had already repaired the boiler. Therefore, the impact of the delay was minimal. Although there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 10 July 2024 it provided a stage 1 complaint response within the 15 working days allowed on 26 July 2024. This includes the 5 days permitted to acknowledge the complaint.
23. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within policy timescales.
24. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Despite a small delay at stage 1, its responses covered all points raised by the resident and were compliant with the Code.

Learning

25. The landlord has shown learning by adapting its communication with the resident and recording vulnerabilities which will help it provide a better future service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. Although the landlord followed most of its complaint handling procedure,it did not provide us with evidence showing it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It should ensure it records and provides this evidence in any future submission to us.

Communication

27. The landlord provided timely complaint responses and was responsive once any repair had been reported by the resident.