Bolton at Home Limited (202205301)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205301

 

Bolton at Home Limited

8 March 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.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

 

a.     repairs to leaks in the resident’s property.

b.     The associated complaint.

 

Background

 

2.     The resident is the landlord’s tenant. She is represented in the complaint by a family member; for clarity both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report, unless otherwise specified. The landlord was aware from at least 28 January 2016 that the resident had physical and mental vulnerabilities.

 

3.     The resident experienced a leak into her property on 24 November 2021. She raised a stage one complaint with the landlord two days later about its handling of the repair. The resident was unhappy that the hot water had been turned off and had not been restored, despite her being vulnerable. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to her on 26 January 2022 and apologised for needing three visits to repair the leak and restore the hot water on 26 November 2022. It offered her flowers as an apology for this.

 

4.     The resident reported to the landlord on 6 February 2022 that her radiator was leaking and she raised a new stage one complaint about its response to this on 11 February 2022. She was unhappy that the operative who attended was unable to isolate the radiator and turned the hot water off at the boiler, leaving her with no running hot water. The resident had not yet received any follow up works. She had also discovered on the same day that the leak had not been fixed and was damaging her possessions as well as penetrating into the property below hers. She was unhappy that the landlord seemed to have no record of her vulnerable status. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 March 2022, it apologised for not isolating the leak fully and for not raising follow- on works as a priority. It offered her £100 compensation for these failures.

 

5.     The resident escalated both of her stage one complaints to the final stage of the landlord’s process on 20 April 2022, asking the landlord to consider the detriment caused to both herself and her family members by its handling of leaks in her property. She requested compensation of £500 to resolve her complaint. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 23 May 2022 and did not uphold the complaint. However it changed its earlier offer of flowers to an offer of

£50 compensation. The landlord maintained the offer of £100 for her complaint made on 11 February 2021.

 

6.     The resident informed the Ombudsman on 14 June 2022 that she remained dissatisfied because the landlord had not made an offer of compensation which adequately addressed the inconvenience to both herself and her family. She explained that her representative had lost earnings when attending the property to provide access for repairs and had expended time and effort in chasing the repairs.

 

Assessment and findings

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to leaks in the resident’s property

 

7.     The landlord was responsible for repairs and maintenance to the structure of the property and the installations within for the provision of power, sanitation and heating. It therefore had a responsibility to repair leaks and ensure that a source of water and space heating was available in the property.

 

8.     The landlord’s repairs policy states that it regards an uncontrollable leak to be an emergency repair and it will respond within two hours to a report of this. This policy also states that it will provide temporary heating when a heating system breaks down.

 

9.     The landlord exhibited failures in its response to the reports of leaks on 24 November 2021 and 6 February 2022. The landlord responded promptly on 24 November 2021 by attending in an hour to turn off the hot water to make safe the leak. It is reasonable for a landlord to take measures, in the first instance, to make the property safe in response to an emergency repair request and it may need to return at a later date to complete a lasting repair. It therefore acted reasonably in turning off the hot water to prevent any potential damage. It also acted promptly by returning the following day to carry out the repair. However, the landlord needed to arrange another operative to return a day after the repair to pipework to restore the hot water. This delay was not reasonable as the hot water should have been restored once the leak was repaired, during the same visit.

 

10. The resident contended that the landlord had not responded appropriately to her as a vulnerable resident. Its stage one complaint response on 26 January 2022 said that the landlord had not received information that confirmed that she was vulnerable. While there was evidence to indicate that the landlord should have been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities prior to this repair, it nevertheless responded to the repair request promptly and within the timeframe the Ombudsman would expect for a vulnerable resident. While there was a short delay in restoring the running hot water, this was restored within two days. Whilst it was undoubtedly inconvenient for the resident to wait for the hot water to be restored, she was not left entirely without hot water as the evidence suggests she had access to a kettle for heating water and an electric shower for bathing. Therefore the £50 compensation the landlord offered the resident for being without hot water for two days was reasonable and proportionately recognised the length of time during which she was inconvenienced by the delay. Its offer of £50 compensation was also broadly in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 where there has been a failure by the landlord, but which was of short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

 

11. The landlord also acknowledged its failures in the handling of its repairs to the leak reported on 6 February 2022. It recognised that, while it attended the report as an emergency, it failed to make safe the leak from the radiator and she had to report that the leak persisted on 11 February 2022. The landlord also recognised that it failed to manage the follow-on works effectively, leading to a delay of six days before the central heating was functioning. The landlord would be expected to provide temporary heating when the property’s heating system was defective, in accordance with its repairs policy. There was no evidence that this was offered, which would be a failure on its part. However, this was mitigated by the resident not residing in the property at the time. Her stage one complaint on 14 February 2022 confirmed that she had been in respite care since 7 February 2022.

 

12. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its failure to isolate the leak first time and its delay in retuning to complete follow-on work. It also provided her with forms to make a claim against his liability insurance for the damage she reported to her possessions. This was a reasonable offer from the landlord which recognised its failures to carry out the initial repair correctly and follow up promptly. The offer was reasonable and proportionate to the failures exhibited and the length of time during which she as affected. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident make a claim through its liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the costs of negligence claims such as damage to residents’ possessions and the landlord would not be expected to pay compensation for this outside the insurance process. The insurance process is separate from the complaints process and the landlord’s insurer can investigate the resident’s claim and make a decision concerning the landlord’s liability and any compensation. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the outcome of insurance claims and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.

 

13. The resident has requested compensation for loss of earnings for her representative to attend appointments. When the Ombudsman considers awarding compensation, the purpose of this is put right any detriment experienced by the resident as a result of any failure by the landlord. Compensation is not awarded in the same way that a court may award ‘damages’. Additionally, compensation for lost earnings from providing access for repairs is not generally considered as the tenancy agreement sets out that that the resident agrees to provide access to the landlord for the purpose of carrying out repairs. It is understood that in some cases residents may need to have someone with them during repairs, but the landlord would not be expected to cover any costs associated with this, such as loss of earnings for the person the resident has asked to be present during repairs. Where there has been an excessive delay by a landlord, or an excessive number of repair visits required, the Ombudsman would consider whether the compensation offered is proportionate to the inconvenience this caused to the resident.

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

 

14. The landlord’s customer feedback (complaint) policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, the landlord is to issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days. At the final stage of its process, it should acknowledge the escalation of the complaint within five working days and provide its final complaint response within 15 further working days of its acknowledgement. If it is unable to meet either of these timeframes it should explain why to the resident and issue its response within no more than a further ten working days.

 

15. The resident raised her first stage one complaint on 26 November 2021. The landlord informed her after 17 working days that its handling timeframe for complaints was extended to 20 working days over the Christmas period. It sent the resident a further email on 20 January 2022 to explain that its response had been delayed due to difficulty in assembling the investigation material. The landlord issues its stage one complaint response to her on 26 January 2022; this was 40 working days after she raised her complaint.

16. The resident raised her second stage one complaint with the landlord on 14 February 2022. The landlord emailed her 21 working days later to advise that its response was delayed due to technical issues and staff resourcing. The landlord provided her with its stage one complaint response on 28 March 2022, after 30 working days.

 

17. The resident escalated both her stage one complaints to the final stage on 20 April 2022 and the landlord provided its final response to her on 23 May 2022, 22 working days later, which was not significantly in excess of the timeframe specified in its policy.

 

18. Whilst some delay was understandable as a result of the Christmas break, overall both of the landlord’s stage one complaint responses were unreasonably delayed. While it did communicate with the resident on both occasions to advise that its complaints responses were delayed, this was after the ten working day timeframe. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have contacted the resident within the ten working-day response timeframe at stage one of the complaints process to explain the reason for the delay and manage her expectations.

 

19. The landlord’s final stage complaint response acknowledged that it responded to the resident’s second complaint late and apologised for this; however, it did not acknowledge that the first complaint had also been delayed. Therefore, it did not offer sufficient redress to the resident to recognise the time and trouble she experienced as a result of this delay. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for its failures in the handling of her complaints. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, mentioned above.

 

Determination

 

20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of repairs to leaks in the resident’s property satisfactorily.

 

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

 

Order

 

22. The landlord should pay £100 compensation to the resident for its failures in the handling of the complaint. Within four weeks, it should confirm to the Ombudsman that it has complied with this order.

 

Recommendations

 

23. The landlord should:

 

a.     Pay the £150 compensation it offered to the resident in its final complaint response.

b.     Review its procedures for the management of repairs to ensure that follow on works are raised and completed within appropriate timeframes.

c.      Carry out refresher training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in accordance with policy

d.     Revise its repairs policy to ensure that it automatically follows-up on all emergency repairs involving vulnerable residents.

e.     Review its record keeping procedures to ensure that operatives record a full and complete record of the work completed during the visit.

f.        Review the BSI’s consumer vulnerability standard: ‘Requirements and guidelines for the design and delivery of inclusive service’ (BS ISO 22458) and commit to creating its own vulnerable persons policy.