Bernicia Group (202115061)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115061

Bernicia Group

11 May 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 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of repairs to the resident’s storage heaters.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord of a three-bedroom house, which is heated via electric storage heaters.
  2. In May 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to his storage heaters. He explained that he was left without heating in his property by it from November 2019 to January 2020 and November 2020 to January 2021, which caused him to purchase one gas and two electric portable heaters. The resident further added that the use of the portable heaters subsequently led to an increase in his electricity bills and, because of this, he had to stay at his friend’s house for two weeks while repairs were being made to his storage heaters. He had been offered £200 compensation by the landlord, which he had rejected on the basis that his electricity bills had increased to £368, and the amount offered did not reflect the inconvenience caused to him.
  3. In response to the resident’s stage one complaint in June 2021, the landlord explained that it had no obligation to provide compensation to cover his electricity bills, or to reimburse him for the portable heaters that he had purchased. It added that it was guided by the right to repair scheme when considering compensation for his lack of heating. The landlord explained that it was unable to locate reports of the resident’s storage heaters needing repairs in November 2019, but that it had found reports of this from December 2019 and January 2020.
  4. The landlord’s reports confirmed that, in December 2019, the resident’s storage heaters were working at the time, but that these were not as hot as expected, and that in January 2020 the heaters were replaced and rewired, which had cost it above £250. It explained to him that, because the heaters were working at the time and the cost of the repairs to them were over £250, the repairs from that period did not fall under the right to repair scheme for it to consider compensating him for his lack of heating.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it could not find reports of the resident’s storage heaters needing repairs in November 2020, but that it had found reports of this from December 2020 to January 2021. Its records showed that its contractors had set an appointment for them to attend his heaters on 10 December 2020, and that they had arrived on that day to complete repairs to these. They were recorded by the landlord as having done a reset to the heating controls to get these to work, and as having advised the resident to inform them if issues with the heaters were still present. It noted that he did not contact them to do so, and that the contractors therefore assumed that the heaters were working correctly. 
  6. The landlord’s records showed that no more reports about the storage heaters were made to it by the resident until 17 December 2020. It recorded that its contractors then arranged to replace one of the heaters, which was completed on 22 January 2021. The contractors were noted as having advised the landlord that the resident had another storage heater in his property that was working adequately during this period. It therefore explained that, as the loss of heating was partial and the repairs were not competed within the specified timeframes, he was entitled to the maximum compensation recommended under the right to repair scheme from it, which was £50.
  7. The landlord nevertheless stated that, as the resident had already been offered £200 compensation by it for his lack of heating that had exceeded the maximum amount usually offered under the right to repair scheme, it felt that it would be unreasonable for it to decrease or increase that offer. It also queried why he did not have a gas central heating installed in his property, as most of its properties had previously had work carried out to install this in 2009, which its records showed that he had declined at the time.
  8. The resident then requested that the complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure in June 2021, stating that he was advised in 2006 that he was not eligible for gas central heating to be installed in his property, and that he had declined to have this installed in 2009, as he expected his heating system to be electric. He also reiterated that he had no heating for three months during 2019 and 2020, and again from 2020 to 2021, as well as that the use of his two portable electric heaters at that time had increased his electricity bills, causing him to stay at his friend’s house, as he could not afford the bill increase.
  9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage two complaint in June 2021, however, disputed his reports that he was left without heating by it for three months on two different occasions. It stated that its records instead showed that he had still had storage heaters that were working but were not as hot as expected in 2019, and that were repaired and replaced by it in 2020 and 2021, when another one of these heaters was working adequately in his property. The landlord further added that the offer of £200 compensation that it had made him for the issues with the heaters was fair and reasonable.
  10. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure in June 2021, and he added that he would take the matter to court if required, as the single storage heater that had been working in his property was inadequate to heat the whole of the three-bedroom house. He explained that its compensation offer was not enough considering the two ears of inconvenience and financial burdens that he had experienced. The resident also added that he had declined to have gas central heating installed in his property in 2009 because this would have increased his energy bills, and as a Government scheme was being implemented by 2035 to use electric heating systems instead of gas to reduce the carbon footprint.
  11. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident in December 2021, stating that it disagreed that using a gas central heating system would have increased his energy bills, as it was aware that gas was cheaper to use than electricity and would have reduced his electricity usage. It further explained that the benefit of having the gas central heating system installed was that this would reduce the experience of repeated repairs that he had been encountered.
  12. The landlord also guided the resident to free advice on saving energy for utility bills and reiterated that it had no obligation to pay for his electricity bills. Although it stated that, if it were to consider this, it would need relevant evidence such as the kilowatt hours charged in the current year and a bill comparison of the same period when his storage heaters were working correctly, which it had not yet received from him. The landlord additionally explained that it had no obligation to reimburse the resident for the portable heaters that he had purchased, but it added that it would have delivered such heaters to his home, if he had requested these from it.
  13. Moreover, the landlord informed the resident that the Government electric heating system scheme by 2035 was just a proposal and that, if this was to occur, landlords would not be expected to remove gas heating systems overnight, but to instead seek alternatives to these. It therefore urged him to reconsider replacing his storage heaters with a gas central heating system, and it confirmed that the offer of £200 compensation to him was unchanged.
  14. The resident was nevertheless dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered and that his expenses were not covered, and he referred the complaint to this Service, which requested and received the above information from the landlord together with its repair records that supported this.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it is obliged to ensure that the installations for the supply of heating to his property are in working order. The policy requires it to attend emergency repairs that are a risk to his health and safety within 24 hours, and to book all other standard repairs on the next available date that is agreed with him. The repairs and maintenance policy also confirms that the resident has a right to repair within the timescales of the right to repair scheme.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it has an obligation to offer the resident compensation if qualifying repairs are not completed within the right to repair scheme’s designated timeframes. The scheme defines a qualifying repair as one that does not cost over £250, and that puts his health, safety or security at risk if not completed within the specified timeframe of within one working day for heating not working between 31 October and 1 May, for which he is entitled to compensation of up to a maximum of £50. The landlord also has discretion under the policy to offer the resident compensation for substantial inconvenience or specific financial losses as a result of its actions or omissions based on the circumstances of the case.
  3. As the landlord’s records confirmed that it did not receive a report that the resident was without heating until December 2019, that it attended this within one working day, and that his storage heaters were working but was not as hot as this should have been at that time, it was not required to compensate him for this under its compensation policy. It then recorded that, when it replaced and rewired the heaters in January 2020, the heaters were working and the threshold for the cost of these works of £250 was exceeded, so that it was also not obliged to compensate him for that period.
  4. Moreover, the landlord subsequently responded to the resident’s later storage heater repair reports from December 2020 in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement for standard repairs on 10 December 2020, via its contractors’ appointment and repairs on that day. It additionally did not receive further reports of issues with the heaters from him until 17 December 2020, so that it was reasonable for it to assume that there were no ongoing issues with these in the meantime, and it then replaced a malfunctioning heater on 22 January 2021.
  5. The compensation of £200 offered by the landlord to the resident, for the period of 17 December 2020 to 22 January 2021, was therefore proportionate to put things right, as this exceeded the amount recommended under the right to repair scheme, which would have been a maximum of £50. His loss of heating during that period was also only partial and the delayed replacement of one his malfunctioning storage heaters did not exceed its repairs and maintenance policy’s requirement for standard repairs, as the timescale for these was not specified.
  6. Therefore, the compensation offered was reasonable to recognise the detriment experienced by the resident from the inconvenience of his partial loss of heating from December 2020 to January 2021, for which its compensation policy gave it discretion to decide the amount that it offered him. As a consequence, it has been recommended below to re–offer him the compensation of £200 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
  7. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident reported that he incurred costs from the lack of heating at his property, due to purchasing portable heaters that the landlord explained that it could have provided to him on request, and the resulting increase to his electricity bills. While the compensation policy did not require it to reimburse him for the portable heaters, it has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs. This is with regard to them informing residents about and providing alternative or additional heaters in response to heating repairs, to ensure that these are offered to residents in every case.
  8. The landlord was nevertheless not obliged by its compensation policy to provide compensation for the resident’s increased electricity bills. However, under the policy it can use its discretion to offer such compensation to him for his specific financial losses as a result of its actions or omissions based on the circumstances of the case. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the relevant information that it required in order to do so, if it were to consider compensation for his electricity bill, for which it explained that it had not yet received evidence of his specific losses from a comparison of his bills.
  9. Furthermore, the landlord attempted to prevent future heating difficulties for the resident, by appropriately informing him that the installation of a gas central heating system would reduce the likelihood of the repair issues that he had experienced with his storage heaters. It was also appropriate for it to acknowledge and attempt to resolve his concerns regarding saving money on his energy bills, by offering him free advice about this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the level of compensation offered by it for its handling of repairs to his storage heaters satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
  1. Re–offer the resident the compensation of £200 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
  2. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs regarding them informing residents about and providing alternative or additional heaters in response to heating repairs, to ensure that these are offered to residents in every case.