Advance Housing and Support Limited (202207347)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207347

Advance Housing and Support Limited

9 October 2023


 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the servicing of the boiler.
    2. Concerns that the boiler was not operating correctly and her report of the boiler leaking on 31 August 2021.
    3. Complaints about the above matters.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property, a two-bedroom detached bungalow, under a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The resident was no longer the shared owner from February 2022.
  2. The resident occupied the property under a version of shared ownership offered by the landlord called HOLD: home ownership for people with a long-term disability. Under this scheme, the landlord provided a repair and maintenance service (including gas servicing), paid for via a service charge.
  3. The resident’s complaint was that whilst the landlord had carried out a gas safety check on the boiler, it had not completed an annual service in 2020 and 2021. The resident complained that the landlord did not address issues with the boiler not working correctly or efficiently. The resident complained that when she reported the boiler leaking, this was not dealt with as an emergency repair. The resident was also dissatisfied with the time taken for the landlord to respond to her complaint under its internal complaints procedure.
  4. The landlord’s final position was that servicing and gas safety checks are carried out at the same time and that the boiler leak was responded to appropriately given that the leak was not uncontrolled.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns with the landlord on 25 February 2020 that a full service of the boiler was not carried out as the contractor said “there was no point.” The landlord advised the resident that it would pass this on to the relevant team. However, the landlord noted there was no further correspondence on this and there is no evidence that the matter was investigated.
  2. On 2 June 2020 the landlord sent the resident the gas certificate, stating that it did not understand what the resident meant by full service, noting that engineers make sure everything is running as it should be.  The resident’s response (on 2 June 2020) clarified that a full boiler service had been done for many years and takes around an hour. However, in 2020 the contractor finished in 15 minutes. The resident was concerned that the boiler continued to work inefficiently. There is no evidence of further correspondence on this matter.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In order to pursue this matter with the Ombudsman, the resident needed to have raised a complaint with the landlord within a reasonable timescale of when her concern arose that the boiler had not received the service she desired. The resident did not complaint to the landlord until September 2021. Therefore, the above events have been noted as context but will not be assessed as part of this investigation’s findings

Concerns about the servicing of the boiler.

  1. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord was obliged to keep in proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for heating the home and for heating water, including central heating installations and an annual gas check.  One of the headings in appendix 3 of the lease ‘notification of weekly charge’ is gas servicing.
  2. According to Gas Safe, where landlords have a legal requirement to maintain gas appliances in a safe condition, this normally means servicing the appliance in line with the manufacturer’s instructions.
  3. A gas safety check and a service are not the same; the Gas Safe website explains the difference. A gas safety check assesses the basic safety of gas appliances in the home. Its purpose is to ensure everything is working correctly and is safe and includes (but is not limited to) checking that gas appliances are burning correctly with the correct operating pressure; harmful gases are being removed from the appliance safely to the air outside; ventilation routes are clear and adequate; any safety devices are working properly.
  4. A service will consist of a full check of a gas appliance. and alongside the checks listed above the engineer will follow the manufacturer’s instructions and carry out equipment specific actions such as remove components for cleaning; replace serviceable parts; clean the heat exchanger and any flueways; assess the physical condition of the appliance; check the state of any air vents and flues; carry out combustion performance tests (where applicable); undertake any unnecessary remedial work; and highlight any issues found.
  5. The resident reports that from 2019 onwards, instead of completing a full service of the gas boiler in line with manufacturer’s instructions, the landlord’s contractor completed only a gas safety check. The resident raised her concerns about the boiler service (along with other issues) in an email of 14 June 2021. Although the resident did not label this a complaint and the landlord did not handle it as such, the level of dissatisfaction expressed with the landlord’s actions was such that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have dealt with this as a complaint or at the least asked the resident how she wished the matter to be handled.
  6. It is not in dispute that the landlord did complete gas safety checks – certificates have been provided to confirm this. The matter in dispute is whether at the same time as carrying out the gas safety check, the contractor serviced the boiler and if not, whether it should have done so. The landlord’s letter of 19 January 2021 advised that the annual gas service and safety check was due. The letter stated that servicing will ensure safety, increase efficiency, and could lower fuel bills. The resident stated that she reported problems with the boiler to the engineer on this occasion but there is no evidence of this and no evidence of any action taken. However, the gas safety certificate dated 28 January 2021 recorded “appliance serviced” as a yes. 
  7. There was no further correspondence about this until the resident’s email of 14 June 2021 where she set out the reasons why she wanted to move which included there being no full boiler service since 2019 and her concern about the boiler’s efficiency. The resident reiterated this in her email of 6 August 2021, noting that the contractor told her a full service was not needed as she had hot water and heating.
  8. The landlord raised a job on 23 June 2021 for a boiler service which it states was an error and raised this again on 28 June 2021 which it states was completed on 30 September 2021. It is not clear if this job was raised because of the resident’s email of 14 June 2021, but if so, the landlord should have kept the resident informed.
  9. The resident made a formal complaint on 1 September 2021, noting that there had been no full boiler service since February 2019. The resident noted she made the engineer aware of issues in 2020 and 2021 but the full service was not completed. The landlord’s email of 17 September 2021 stated the annual gas safety checks were completed in 2020 and 2021. The landlord noted the resident’s concern that she was advised that a full check was not required. The landlord noted it can ask the contractor to complete a new gas safety check on completion of repairs.
  10. The resident questioned whether the contractor had checked the CO detector and smoke detector although it was recorded as such on the certificates. Without further contemporaneous evidence, it is not possible for this investigation to establish whether the contractor did check the detectors. By this point, the landlord was no longer working with the contractor in question. The landlord provided appropriate advice to the resident that she should check the detectors herself and the current contractor would check these again when it attended to undertake repairs.
  11. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand the resident’s concern that boiler services had not been completed and investigate in so far as it could. However, instead the landlord stated that the certificates showed no issues with the heating and the fact that the checks were brief, did not mean they were incorrect. The landlord had arranged for its current contractor to carry out a gas safety check and check detectors after carrying out repairs. The landlord also explained that the contractor can only assess the boiler as it is on the day so if no repairs are present, such as in cases where there is heating and hot water, there are no repairs to report. The landlord explained its repairs service is reactive so will only repair when an issue arises (unless an engineer finds a part near breaking point where they would recommend replacement).
  12. However, this response did not acknowledge that a boiler service is to some extent about taking preventative action, ensuring an appliance is clean and running efficiently. Had the landlord explained any steps taken by the contractor to service the boiler, this could have resolved the complaint to some extent. Subsequently, the landlord advised that annual gas checks can take 10-15 minutes and being swift, did not mean it was inadequate.  The landlord stated when a gas engineer finds a boiler in working order, they are unlikely to find repairs required as otherwise the boiler would not be operational. However, again this response did not clearly address the resident’s concern as to whether a boiler service had been completed at the same time as the safety check.
  13. The resident went on to make a stage two complaint noting that she had not said that a brief check was incorrect but rather that a gas safety check and a boiler service are not the same things. The resident noted she reported problems with the boiler on both occasions; she went on to provide some general information about kettling and boilers shutting off.
  14. The landlord’s stage two response stated that a safety check and service are completed at the same time so the boiler would have been checked on the date of the service. The landlord’s final response stated that required safety checks were carried out throughout this period, meeting the landlord’s health and safety obligations. The landlord advised that boiler servicing (as per the manufacturer’s instructions) is included in the landlord’s gas and heating contract, alongside the safety checks. The final response also referred to the independent auditor who can check work completed by contractors.
  15. The resident remained dissatisfied that no full service had been done and the landlord had not known what she meant by “full service.” The resident complained that it was only in the final complaint response that she was informed of the independent auditor, so that matter could have been resolved sooner.
  16. The information provided in the lease and the gas service and safety check appointment letters sent to the resident indicate that a gas safety check should be carried out and a service of the boiler as well. The gas safety certificates indicate that the services were carried out. However, given that the resident disputed this, the landlord should have followed up on the resident’s concerns and looked at its records, in order to establish what had happened. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord not to investigate the resident’s concerns about the service. 
  17. The landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concerns was compounded by the fact that initially the landlord did not appear to understand that a boiler service and gas safety check are different and that the expectation was that both would be completed. This exacerbated the resident’s dissatisfaction. The landlord’s final complaint response provided generic information that boiler servicing is included alongside safety checks but did not indicate it had investigated in any way and nor did it provide information specific to the resident’s property which may have allayed her concerns.

 

Concerns that the boiler was not operating correctly and her report of the boiler leaking on 31 August 2021.

  1. The shared ownership lease states that the landlord will attend to all repairs reported within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The resident complained that she had informed the landlord (and contractor) of issues with the boiler in 2021 following the gas safety checks but no action had been taken. There is no contemporaneous record available of reports made to the landlord at this time. There is also no evidence of the resident following up with the landlord if she did not receive a response regarding her reports.
  3. The resident was concerned that the lack of boiler services in 2020 and 2021 led to the eventual breakdown of the boiler on 30 August 2021 when she contacted the landlord to report a boiler leak.  Whilst the resident’s concern is understandable, there is no evidence provided to this investigation such that this investigation could draw a link between these two concerns.
  4. The resident’s emails to the landlord of 14 June and 6 August 2021 stated that the boiler was not working efficiently as one of the reasons why the resident wished to move. The resident did not state any specific problems with the boiler at this time but nonetheless, the landlord could have followed up with the resident her concerns about the boiler.
  5. After reporting the boiler leak on 30 August 2021, the resident complained she was told an engineer would attend that afternoon but this did not happen. Having followed this up, the resident noted she was told she would have to wait 24 hours. The landlord apologised for the conflicting information given. When the contractor attended it was 33.5 hours after the resident had reported the boiler leak. The contractor was unable to resolve the boiler issue. There was discussion between the landlord and contractor and between the landlord and resident about whether the boiler needed repair or replacement; subsequently it was decided that repair was possible, parts were ordered and the work was completed on 30 September 2021 with a gas safety check completed at the same time.
  6. In the meantime, the resident made a formal complaint on 1 September 2021 that the landlord had not acted with urgency to fix the boiler. On 5 September 2021 the resident noted the boiler had been turned off at the mains due to the leak. She asked for an update as she had waited five working days and there had been no further action. The resident advised that the contractor provided a new carbon monoxide monitor. The resident noted more areas of visible corrosion on the outside of pipes/seals which she stated she first noted prior to February 2021 and mentioned to the landlord. However, there is no evidence (and the resident noted she could not provide any) of this report in February 2021.
  7. The landlord advised on 17 September 2021 that boiler parts had been ordered but boiler replacement was also being considered. The landlord apologised for the delay on 20 September 2021. The resident noted she had only turned the boiler on twice in three weeks when she had needed hot water. The resident noted that due to her health conditions, boiling a full kettle of water to access hot water was dangerous. The landlord was aware of the need for urgent resolution.
  8. According to the landlord’s policy, repairs should be considered an emergency if there is no heating in severe weather, a severe leak or no hot water. In this case, there is no indication the weather was severe as it was August/September, the leak was containable and there was an immersion heater (electric) for hot water. That the contractor attended in approximately 33 hours seems to be reasonable in these circumstances although it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for conflicting information given to the resident about timescales for a response.
  9. It is understandable that the resident was inconvenienced by the boiler being switched off and it must be noted that this inconvenience was increased as a result of the resident’s health conditions and disabilities. The landlord, resident, and contractor were in contact about boiler parts having been ordered, the possibility of a replacement boiler and the resident’s grant application via the affordable warmth scheme. The boiler was repaired on 30 September 2021 after which the resident was reassured.
  10. The resident’s concern was that the landlord relied on the gas safety certificates not mentioning any issues but she stated that she had reported kettling, the boiler being loud and that it kept shutting itself off. The resident noted that although it provided heating and hot water, it did not work efficiently. The contractor attending in August 2021 noted corrosion and the main heat exchanger being corroded. This information was passed to the landlord with a recommendation to resolve (which is what the resident expected the previous engineer to do).
  11. The landlord’s stage one complaint response advised that the boiler leak was not uncontrolled and the resident had heating and hot water and so the contractor did not log the matter as an emergency but apologised that the resident was told differently. The landlord noted the 24-hour timescale was to make the situation safe (to isolate a leaking boiler for example) although the leak was containable for the resident. The contractor must then return at a later date having obtained the necessary parts. The landlord also noted repairs had not identified on the gas safety certificates. The resident remained dissatisfied noting that she could contain the leak but had to check this was not overflowing and was advised to turn the boiler off.
  12. The landlord’s stage two complaint response noted that as reports about the boiler were raised in 2020, it was unable to fully investigate as it was too long ago, and that it understood that issues raised during the 2021 service had been rectified. The landlord advised it passed on a timeline of events to managers to be used for continual improvement. The resident remained dissatisfied noting that the boiler had to be fixed due to issues initially raised in February 2020. The resident complained that the boiler had been overheating daily with an ongoing leaking valve, kettling and cutting out, giving insufficient heating. The resident noted that after a wait of 19 months, the boiler was fixed in 2 hours on 30 September 2021.
  13. The landlord provided its final response under its complaint procedure on 19 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the reports made by the resident should have been responded to sooner and apologised that this was not done. The landlord also confirmed that they could have used their independent auditor to review work done by their contractor and that they would make sure this option was considered in any future similar cases. The landlord noted the resident communicated her view that servicing was not thorough, as well as reporting the boiler was working inefficiently/intermittently.
  14. The landlord noted that intermittent faults can be difficult to deal with but that the resident’s reports should have been responded to more actively and sooner. The landlord noted it relies on contractors but further investigation could have been done sooner and the landlord apologised this was not the case.  The landlord noted it has an independent third party gas safety auditor and they could have been asked to review the boiler and the original contractor’s work. The landlord had asked the relevant team to ensure this option is considered for any future similar cases. The landlord concluded that  “I am glad that the boiler was eventually repaired to your satisfaction, but I am sorry that this was not addressed sooner.”
  15. The resident complained to this Service, that after she reported the boiler leak, it was over 33 hours before the contractor attended and four weeks before the boiler was fixed. The resident noted physical disabilities and health consequences which deteriorated as a result of the cold winter of 2020/2021 as she could not keep re-setting the boiler every 15 minutes or so. The resident noted the boiler was kettling/loud/kept cutting out after 10-15 minutes.
  16. Whilst noting the resident’s concerns that the boiler had been cutting out, kettling and needed re-setting every 15 minutes for a period of over two years, the evidence provided does not establish this timescale. The Ombudsman can only assess where reports have been made and if the landlord responded appropriately.
  17. The landlord overall responded appropriately to the boiler leak reported on 30 August 2021. It could however have provided clearer information to the resident as to whether she was expected to turn the boiler off or whether she could turn it on (and contain the leak) in order to access hot water. In any event, the resident did have hot water via an immersion heater, although the resident noted she was reluctant to use this due to the cost of electricity. Where parts or a replacement are required, it may not be possible for the landlord to complete work immediately and in this case, the landlord did keep the resident updated before repairs were completed on 30 September 2021.

Complaints handling

  1. According to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, at stage one the lead officer should respond to the complaint within 15 working days. If this is not possible, the complainant should be updated regularly.  This timescale is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that a landlord should respond to a complaint within 10 working days (although a time extension can be agreed between the parties at all stages).
  2. According to the landlord’s complaints procedure, the complainant has 10 working days to appeal the stage one decision. The stage two lead officer should send an acknowledgement letter to the complainant by the next working day. The stage two lead officer should speak to the complainant and seek to resolve the issue. If this is not possible, a panel hearing should be arranged within 20 working days of the decision to escalate. The complainant should be informed of the panel’s decision within 10 working days.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 1 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 September 2021, apologising for the one-day delay in acknowledgement. The landlord responded at stage one on 27 September 2021 which was a delay as a 10-working day response should have seen a response by 15 September 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about the delay and the stage one response did not apologise for the delay.
  4. The resident made a stage two complaint on 29 September 2021 which the landlord acknowledged promptly on the same day. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure consists of a written response at stage one and consideration of the complaint by a panel at stage two. However, in this case, for reasons which are not clear, the landlord introduced an additional stage as the landlord responded to the stage two complaint by letter.  The landlord issued the stage two response on 15 December 2021 which was outside the 20-working day response time for stage two complaints set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The stage two response did not apologise for the delay in complaint handling.
  5. The resident chased the complaint response on 13 December 2021 but did not receive the stage two letter dated 15 December 2021 and so followed this up with the landlord on 29 December 2021. However, it was not until 20 January 2022 that the landlord emailed a copy to the resident which was a significant delay, given that the response was already delayed and this was an extra stage in the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  6. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to a stage two panel on 11 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day and asked the resident what outcome she desired. According to the landlord’s complaints procedure, a panel meeting should be arranged within 20 working days of the decision to escalate the complaint. However, according to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a landlord should respond to a stage three complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord’s timescale is not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. The landlord did not comply with its own timescale in its complaints procedure.
  7. The panel first convened on 20 April 2022, following which, in a letter dated 22 April 2022, the landlord notified the resident that it would need more time to undertake further investigations. The panel members wanted a timeline of events. The landlord’s final response was issued on 19 May 2022. The landlord apologised that this had “taken a little longer than anticipated.” The landlord also apologised that the stage two investigation was not sufficiently thorough especially given the extensive details that the resident provided. The landlord noted that further investigation and engagement with the resident at that stage may have prevented the need to convene a panel. The landlord’s final complaint response was a missed opportunity for the landlord to proactively acknowledge the delays in its complaint handling process and offer compensation proportionate to the complaint handling delays.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and complained to this Service that the landlord’s complaints procedure had taken approximately nine months, and according to the landlord’s complaints procedure, she had been expecting the landlord’s final complaint response in December 2021.
  9. Taken altogether, the landlord’s complaints procedure was a drawn-out process with significant, unexplained delays which were not acknowledged or apologised for by the landlord. The Complaint Handling Code states that a two-stage procedure is ideal. It is not clear why in this case, the landlord considered a three-stage procedure was necessary as it was not productive in terms of timeliness, resolving the complaint or putting things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its failure to investigate the resident’s concern about whether a boiler service had been completed at the time of the gas safety check.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns that the boiler was not operating correctly and her report of the boiler leaking on 31 August 2021.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint due to unexplained delays in the landlord’s complaints procedure, resulting in a protracted process.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord pays the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the boiler service.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this letter that the landlord pays the resident compensation of £150 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by delays in its complaints handling.