Aster Group Limited (202128583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128583

Aster Group Limited

11 August 2022

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported issues with her hot water system resulting in a water leak.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a house.
3. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported the loss of hot water in her property on 21 June 2021. She explained that her heating worked but each time the hot water was in use, it only ran hot for a few minutes before becoming cold. An engineer attended that same day but was unable to gain access to the property. The engineer returned on 23 June 2021 and identified that a part was required to fix the boiler which was then fitted on 30 June 2021.
4. The resident reported a problem with the radiator in August 2021. The landlord attended in August 2021 and fitted a part to the radiator in September 2021. A short time later, the resident reported that the boiler made a loud noise and leaked intermittently. An engineer attended but they were unable to gain access to the property. On 27 September 2021 the resident reported no heating or hot water and a water leak from the radiator. An engineer attended the resident’s property that same day and repaired the leaking radiator. The landlord ordered a part to fix the boiler and returned to fit it on 30 September 2021. The landlord attended again in October and November 2021 and carried out further repairs to the heating system and bath taps. The resident raised a formal complaint on 11 November 2021 explaining that she had had a broken boiler since March 2021 and was dissatisfied that she had to book a hotel to have a shower. She questioned why the fault had not been resolved.
5. An engineer attended on 24 November 2021 and replaced the heat exchanger, which was blocked. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 15 December 2021 and advised explained that it was common to have more than one visit to resolve repair issues. The landlord noted that on a few occasions it was unable to gain access to the property and that one of the missed appointments was to fit the parts that rectified the issue. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, but said it believed that it had responded to the repair appropriately given the excessive use of the appliance when filling the resident’s hot tub. It explained that its timeframe in ordering and fitting parts was in line with its guidelines, but due to some missed appointments, parts were not fitted within its recommended timeframe.
6. The landlord’s engineers reported that the resident had been leaving the filling loop (hose) open which allowed the system to pressurise above it’s safe working pressure. The landlord noted that it had been discussed with the resident but that she continued to do so. It said that it would not compensate the resident for the damage caused to her television from the leak because the radiators began leaking as the filling loop on the boiler was left open by the resident. It said that it would not usually recommend booking accommodation to use washing facilities but because of the situation and the length of time; it offered to compensate the resident £70 to cover the cost of her hotel booking. It explained that it was unwilling to cover the cost of £450 for the second stay as it did not believe that the cost was fair or reasonable for two nights’ accommodation. The landlord also offered £80 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in perusing the matter as well as the inconvenience caused, totalling £150 compensation.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord in mid-December 2021 to say her accommodation was for three nights at £71 per night, and disputed that she had left the filling link open. The resident said that she was advised by the landlord’s engineer to “fiddle around” with the boiler to try and get it working again. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 21 March 2022 and recalled its previous actions taken. It explained that the boiler should only be used to provide hot water for general use such as bathing and washing. The landlord recommended that water for the hot tub be provided by an electric water heater instead. It explained that it was unable to fully determine period the resident was without heating and hot water in March 2021, and advised it had reconsidered the value of compensation offered from £80 to £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused while waiting completion of repairs. The landlord maintained its previous offer of £70 for one-night accommodation, it advised that the resident’s request for further compensation of £450 to cover a second night’s stay should have been authorised by the landlord before being arranged and had not been supported with an invoice. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered total compensation of £320.
8. The resident passed her complaint to this Service on 31 March 2022 as she disputed that the hot tub had caused the issues with the boiler.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported issues with her hot water system resulting in a water leak

9. The tenancy agreement sets out its responsibilities for repairs. It advises that the landlord is responsible for managing the structure and exterior of the property, including any installations provided by the landlord for heating and water. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy set out a timeframe of 24 hours for emergency repairs and 20 working days for routine repairs. Emergency repairs include circumstances where there is a risk of serious damage to the property or where there is a serious health and safety threat to those living in the property.
10. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water in March 2021. The landlord stated that the resident had been filling the hot tub with hot water using the boiler. The resident denied this as she said the hot tub is heated electronically not using the boiler and has had the hot tub for five years but the boiler problem only started in 2021. There are conflicting accounts regarding the hot tub use and a lack of evidence to confirm which account is correct so the Ombudsman is unable to determine this with certainty. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who had assessed the boiler and to advise the resident not to use the boiler to fill the hot tub (although it is acknowledged she said she was not doing this).
11. Following the resident’s reports of a leak, the landlord was obliged to carry out suitable repairs. The resident initially reported a leak to the landlord in June 2021, its engineer attended the same day which was in line with its repair policy for emergency repairs. As it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property it was reasonable for the landlord to schedule a further visit shortly thereafter, and to complete the outstanding works. The resident is expected to allow access to the landlord and its contractors to carry out repairs, in line with the tenancy agreement. Whilst we understand there may be legitimate reasons why access cannot be granted on some occasions, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays which this caused. Further repair reports were made by the resident which the landlord also attended within 24 hours. The landlord attended the leaks within its timeframe of 24 hours for emergency repairs and once the leak had been stabilised, the final repair was carried out within the landlord’s 20 working day repair timeframe. Landlords cannot always complete a final repair during a short notice emergency repair, especially when parts need to be ordered. In this situation, it is considered acceptable for a temporary repair to be carried out with a further appointment scheduled to complete repairs at a later date.
12. In summary there is no evidence to suggest that the leak occurred specifically because of any service failure or inaction by the landlord. The source of the leak was identified and resolved within a reasonable timeframe and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delay to the process.
13. The landlord stated that the radiators began leaking because the filling loop on the boiler had been left open by the resident (it is acknowledged that the resident disputes this). The landlord explained that the damage caused to the resident’s television was not its responsibility and would not compensate for this. Whilst there remains a dispute concerning the exact cause of the leak, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord was at fault for causing the leak. The landlord would not be expected to pay the cost or to replace damaged items where there is no evidence that it’s actions or inaction led to the damage, and so its decision to decline to cover the cost of damage to the resident’s personal possessions was reasonable under the circumstances.
14. The resident said she had to book alternative accommodation for three nights to shower during the loss of hot water amenities. The landlord offered the resident £70 in compensation for one-night accommodation. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider each claim for compensation on its evidence and decisions will be based on individual circumstances considering all supporting evidence. The landlord advised that the resident’s request of £450 to cover a second night’s stay had not been supported with an invoice and should have been authorised by the landlord before being arranged. Nothing in the evidence provided confirmed the overall cost incurred for the resident’s accommodation. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation for the agreed one night stay rather that further compensation for more nights as it had not received supporting evidence for the longer stay.
15. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused while waiting for completion of repairs and offered her £250 in compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the inconvenience caused and to offer compensation for the overall length of time taken to resolve the issues. As the landlord’s compensation policy does not set out the level of compensation that it will award in different situations, the Ombudsman has assessed the level which should be paid using our own remedies guidance, which is published on our website. The landlord’s compensation offer was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests that we may award between £50 to £250 where there has been considerable service failure by the landlord but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. In view of this the landlord’s compensation offer of £250 was appropriate to reflect its service failures in this case.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported issues with her hot water system resulting in a water leak.