Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202103840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103840

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

8 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) heating system, and the works which surrounded this.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Non-Shorthold Tenant, in respect of the property, since October 2003.
While the landlord has noted that the resident had made reports of mental health concerns, no other vulnerabilities have been noted.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the stress caused by the landlord, his teeth deteriorated, and he subsequently now requires a soft splint. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s teeth (and/or general health). The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman can see that the installation of a new Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) heating system was scheduled to take place on 16 September 2020. As the resident had reservations about this, however, this was put on hold.
On 17 September 2020 the landlord’s Environmental Officer (EO) and the Project Manager (PM) met with the resident to discuss the installation in greater detail. It was noted internally:
1. The resident was advised that due to the intrusiveness of the works, if he was able to, he may wish to leave the property for a few days whilst the works were being undertaken. He opted against this. It noted the resident wished to stay in the lounge during the entire four-day installation.
2. It had taken into account the resident’s preferences for the location of radiators. The coal bunker would be removed to accommodate the residents position request.
3. The number of items stored in the loft was a concern and the insulation which had previously been fitted had been thrown into a pile. The loft was therefore not insulating the property appropriately. It was explained to the resident that in order for the ASHP to work effectively, the loft needed to be cleared so that insulation could be re-installed. The resident agreed to move half of his belongings down from the loft prior to the installation to allow good access.
4. The resident pointed out that there were loose / creaking floorboards from the previous installation of radiators (many years prior). It was agreed that these would be lifted and put back properly.
It is unclear when the landlord and resident agreed the installation would subsequently take place. The Ombudsman notes however that on 5 October 2020 the EO contacted the resident and explained that the installation date had been delayed due to COVID-19 and challenges with material supplies. It advised that there was a national shortage caused by COVID-19 related supply chain issues.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord removed the old cavity wall insulation and replaced this with new insulation on 16 October 2020. It appears that a number of holes were drilled at this time resulting in blue pellets from the insulation spilling out into the resident’s lawn.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord undertook a post-works inspection. It noted the resident’s report that the operatives had left some mess and upon assessing this, found dust covering a number of items. The landlord’s records suggest that the operative did propose to clear this up. On or around this time, the resident also raised the issue of the blue pellets with the landlord and while some were picked up, it does not appear that the issue was resolved.
In late October / early November 2020 both the resident and his daughter contacted the landlord to establish whether the heating installation would go ahead. It was confirmed that this would take place on 16 November 2020.
The resident advised (on 2 November 2020) that he would subsequently be looking at storage options.
The PM attended the resident’s property on 13 November 2020 along with its installations contractor to establish whether the loft and other areas of the property had been emptied as agreed. It noted that his was partially complete.
The ASHP installation took place on 16 and 17 November 2020. The operative noted that no floor tiles were removed during this time as the resident had carpet and was unhappy about this.
On 19 November 2020 the PM visited the resident’s property along with the Customer Liaison Officer (CLO) to address his concerns following the installation of the new heating system. It was noted that during this visit, there had been a dispute between the resident and its builder, and so works had been temporarily paused. The PM subsequently oversaw the remaining works.
On the same day, the resident raised with the contractor in charge that he was unhappy with the plastering of the chimney breast where the fireplace and back boiler had been removed. It was noted that the builder had applied the skim coat poorly and on top of the existing blown vinyl wallpaper. It was agreed that the builder would return to sand this back.
The landlord noted that the resident was also unhappy with the way that the new plastic trunking fit with the old pendock timber trunking which was retained to save the wallpaper in the lounge, and could not be properly accessed in the dining room. The PM agreed to send the in-house Joiner to attend to this as well as minor holes from removed pipework which should have been filled in. The outdoor unit, which was found to be some distance away from the wall (as the manufacturer had run out of angled flexis), would additionally be addressed to bring this closer to the property. The creaking floorboards were also again raised.
On 27 November 2020 the resident contacted the EO to register a complaint about the workmanship of the builder. He explained that upon reattending, after not completing the works very well, the builder was unwilling to allow him to move his belongings before works commenced. This resulted in dust being left all over the resident’s belongings. Records suggest that as the PM was onsite at the time, the surfaces and belongings were cleaned. It noted that it was therefore able to verbally close the complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor also attended on this day to inspect the property for any additional repairs that were required, and a list was compiled.
On 30 November 2020 the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord seeking to establish when the flooring / plastering works would be undertaken. She requested that this work be completed before 15 December 2020 as carpet fitters would be attending on this day. It was also raised that the heating had frozen over the weekend. The resident’s daughter suggested that there appeared to be a problem with the settings.
The CLO advised the resident’s daughter on the same day that a job for the flooring and plastering had been raised, and once a date had been set, she would be updated. She was also advised that an inspection of the heater / settings would be undertaken on the following day. It was confirmed that a same day visit was not required as the heater was working, but it would do so on the following day.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s daughter was provided with a decoration voucher which she confirmed she had obtained for repainting.
Moreover, the EO provided the resident with a written stage one response. It apologised for the resident’s experience with regards to the workmanship of the builder and noted that it fell short of its standards. The EO acknowledged that there were several items which remained incomplete and advised that arrangements would be made for this to be completed. The resident was advised that he could escalate matters within 10 working days if he remained dissatisfied with this response.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone about the heaters. It noted that during this call, the resident requested that it hold off on all works identified by the surveyor (except the plastering, and seemingly the flooring), due to the ongoing disruption caused by the ASHP installation. It was confirmed for the resident that the plastering works had been arranged for 21 December 2020, and that the surveyor would be happy to revisit the works placed on hold, in the new year.
Records show that the landlord contacted the resident on the same day to confirm that the heating was working. It was advised by the resident that all but one radiator was functioning. It was agreed that the inspection arranged could be moved to the following day to ensure that the correct engineer could attend.
The inspection of the heating system was subsequently undertaken on 2 December 2020. Notes suggest that the kitchen radiator was bled, but all other settings were found to be OK.
On 3 December 2020 the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord reporting that the heating had turned off and was displaying an error code. The Ombudsman can see that the contractor and the PM attended on the same day rectifying this.
Also on 3 December 2020 the landlord raised an order to replace the vinyl flooring in the residents WC and bathroom.
The floorboards were replaced in the small area of the landing, all three bedrooms and the WC and bathroom on 4 December 2020.
On 15 December 2020 the new vinyl flooring was fit in the WC and bathroom. The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord on the same day extremely dissatisfied with the quality of work, however. This was inspected by the PM on the following day and no health and safety risks were found. It did note a number of other issues with the flooring nonetheless, and therefore requested that the contractor reattend to replace the flooring.
On 17 December 2020 the landlord’s contractors (overseen by the PM) addressed the piping and flushed the heating system at the resident’s property. New angled flexis were also fitted to bring the external pump closer to the wall as promised. The pendock trunking was also fitted to the downstairs radiator.
On 18 December 2020 the resident reported that the heating was worse. An emergency job was subsequently raised, and the contractor / PM returned on the same day to bleed air out of the system. The issues were resolved on the same day.
On 21 December 2020 the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord to establish whether all plastering works would be completed on the day or whether a second visit was required. She also expressed dissatisfaction that the plasterer had yet to turn up, despite the works being an all-day job.
The landlord advised the resident’s daughter that a second visit would be required. She was also advised that the plasterer had been held up at another job but would be on route to begin works.
In a later call on the same day, however, the landlord advised that its plasterer would be unable to attend and would need to reschedule this appointment. The landlord’s notes show that the resident’s daughter was extremely distressed by this. She felt let down and was unhappy with the whole process. She subsequently wished to raise a complaint about this.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord managed to arrange for the plastering works to be completed on the following day (22 December 2020).
On 4 January 2021 the Head of Development (HD) provided the resident with a stage one response. It apologised for the distress caused by cancelling the plastering works and explained:
1. The appointment was cancelled as other plasterwork jobs ran over which meant there was not enough time to complete the work.
2. While the work was initial rescheduled for January 2021, it managed to schedule this for the following day.
The HD acknowledged that since closing the resident’s complaint in November 2020, the following works remained outstanding:
1. The loft installation. It requested that the resident confirm that he was happy for this to go ahead.
2. Vinyl flooring. It would confirm when this would go ahead.
3. External works. Where holes had been drilled to insert the cavity wall insulation, these needed to be filled. There was also external paint work to be done which it would be in contact about.
On 7 January 2021 the landlord noted that the heat exchanger on the ASHP was frozen. Internal emails show that an emergency request was made to attend to this, and this was restored on the same day.
The landlord’s records also show that on 8 January 2021 its flooring contractor installed the new vinyl flooring in the resident’s WC and bathroom.
It appears that the resident spoke with the landlord on or around this time expressing dissatisfaction with the complaint response. On 11 and 20 January 2021 the resident’s daughter sought a further response from the landlord.
On 27 January 2021 the EO wrote to the resident. It explained that it had agreed an approach for compensating those effected by the ASHP heating systems and would be writing to residents further in due course. The compensation would be broken down into two parts – any additional costs through having to use temporary heaters; and compensation for the disruption caused. The EO explained that it also continued to work closely with the manufacturer and installation contractor to prevent any future failings.
On the same day the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated:
1. In his previous telephone call with the landlord, it was discussed and agreed that someone would investigate and take an overview of the whole process – making a decision on whether it could be deemed a successful installation and considering the issues raised off the back of it.
2. It was also discussed that the issues were down to the contractor, and a particular operative.
3. The landlord had not made the operative take responsibility for the problems or ensured that these issues were resolved before signing the works off. This meant that works had to be rectified by the landlord and subsequently meaning that works were still being discussed three months down the line.
4. He had requested compensation for the upheaval and inconvenience, delay, and monetary costs incurred as a result of the delay and failures. This included costs for storage, delays in being able to decorate the property, and in being able to fit the carpet in a timely manner. These were plans which he was still catching up on which also delayed the works to the loft. He added that there were also health implications.
5. He was disappointed that he had not received a response to his complaint and requested a prompt reply outlining the action the landlord proposed to take against its contractor and to compensate him.
6. He noted the compensation letter from the EO on 27 January 2021. He stated that this was irrelevant to his complaint as he was satisfied that matters had been resolved in a timely manner on each occasion. He therefore asserted that he hoped this was separate to his complaint response. He requested less communication from EO, expressing that previous involvement with her had not been pleasant.
7. The works completed by the landlord itself to rectify the mess left by the contractors could not be faulted.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage two of its process on 28 January 2021. He requested that the contractor’s actions were investigated, that it consider the delay in works, and questioned whether the landlord considered the installation of the heating system to be successful.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a final response. It apologised for the resident’s experience and advised that it had reviewed the timeline since the installation of the resident’s heating system in November 2020. It advised:
1. There had been multiple visits to the resident’s home in response to the ASHP’s several performance failures.
2. It apologised that its contractors had not delivered high level customer service. It recognised that from the resident’s viewpoint, the contractor and installation had not been acceptable. It agreed, given the performance issues, that the installation process had not met its standards.
3. the issues with the ASHP had now been resolved, and the resident had agreed that he did not wish this to be considered as part of the complaint. It noted that there had been a number of issues with the ASHP for all customers.
4. To prevent similar problems with the contractor in the future, a number of measures had been put in place. There would now be more oversight of works completed, with an internal member of staff overseeing this. There was also a revised specification and installation guide developed in partnership with the ASHP manufacturer. A member of the team would be checking that this guide was followed.
5. New contracts for the next set of ASHP installations would contain strict performance measures to enable it to act quickly, should any issues occur.
6. It recognised that it had agreed to pay for storage of the resident’s items and to complete works to the resident’s loft over the course of two separate visits. It stated that it would await confirmation from the resident that he was ready to proceed, so that it could return to undertake the insulation. While it had agreed to reimburse the resident for one month’s storage costs, it was happy to extend this to three months to account for any delays caused by the issues he had experienced.
7. In a separate letter, it would confirm the compensation for the inconvenience and costs incurred due to the failure of the ASHP.
In further correspondence on the same day, the EO wrote to the resident with a compensation offer. It apologised that the heating system had not been as reliable as it should have been and for any distress / inconvenience. In recognition of this, it advised it would offer:
1. £13.50 for the additional cost of using temporary heaters on the (3) days that the heating system was not working.
2. £50 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience and discomfort during this time.
While this Service has not had sight of the offer, the landlord has also advised this Service that £250 was also provided towards new carpet in the resident’s living room, following the removal of the solid fuel fire place.

Assessment and findings

It was not disputed that there were several issues with the new heating system which resulted in inconvenience for the resident and a lack of heating at times. As well as the landlord accepting this and making an offer of compensation, the resident also confirmed for the landlord that he was satisfied that following each issue with the system, it had responded promptly. This was subsequently not the basis for his complaint.
Instead, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the installation works to put the heating system in place and the issues which arose off the back of this. On review of his experience, the Ombudsman notes that there were several issues.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the installation of a ASHP heating system is a significant job which requires several steps and the involvement of several teams / external contractors. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord met with the resident before the installation to discuss the scope of the works in greater detail, to agree on the positioning of equipment, and to attempt to manage his expectations.
The Ombudsman can see that due to the intrusive and disruptive nature of the works, it was suggested that the resident could leave the property whilst this was being done. It appears, however, that the resident was expected to make his own arrangements as no records have been provided which suggest that the landlord offered to temporarily accommodate him. This therefore may not have been a viable option.
In any case, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord / its contractors to have completed the works to a high standard and as quickly as reasonably possible. Under the landlord’s Employers Requirements Schedule of Service Required for the Contract document, it indicates that its contractors should deliver a high-quality service that improves the property, and that works are to be carried out in a manner that will cause the minimum inconvenience.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy also suggests, where quality is concerned, that it will aim to successfully complete works first time and expect the highest standard of service from colleagues and contractors.
It is clear, however, that this was not demonstrated upon commencement of works. The Ombudsman can see that in October 2020 the landlord confirmed for itself that dust and mess had been left at the resident’s property following the replacement of the cavity wall insulation. What’s more, following the installation of the heating system in November 2020, it again confirmed, upon inspection of the works undertaken and upon discussion with the resident, that there were issues with the plastering of the chimney breast, the fitting of the new plastic trunking, the floorboards, and holes (from removed pipework) that had not been filled in. While it was appropriate that it agreed to arrange for these matters to be readdressed, this did not demonstrate the delivery of a first-time high-quality service and would have been disappointing for the resident.
Where the resident subsequently complained about the workmanship of the contractor, and noted that upon returning, the contractor had left further dust covering his belongings, it was reasonable that the landlord upheld his complaint. As its contractors are an extension of its Service, the landlord bears responsibility for the actions of the contractor and must ensure that the appropriate standards are met. It acknowledged within its response that on this occasion, the service fell short, however. It was therefore fair that the landlord offered the resident an apology and took steps to undertake works to rectify the issues. The landlord’s notes suggest that the landlord / contractor also took steps to clean the dust (and coal footprints). This was appropriate. It appears that the resident was also satisfied with this as no attempt was made to challenge the landlord’s stage one response (on 30 November 2020) in the timeframe provided.
While the Ombudsman has noted that an argument also took place between the landlord’s contractor and the resident at this time, no comments have been made in relation to this as the Ombudsman was not present, and does not have enough evidence to reasonably make a judgment. It was appropriate nonetheless that the landlord discussed the matter with both parties and enabled works to resume.
It was fair that the landlord closed the resident’s complaint and advised that it would arrange for the outstanding works to be addressed. It is noted that works to re-lay the floorboards were undertaken on 4 December 2020, ahead of the resident’s daughter’s carpet arrangement, which she advised was to take place on 15 December 2020.
The Ombudsman can see, however, that further issues remained with the quality of works which were being undertaken at the resident’s property. After arranging for the vinyl flooring to be fit in the resident’s WC and bathroom on 15 December 2020, the landlord confirmed for itself – upon receiving a complaint from the resident’s daughter – that a re-fitting was required. This would have been frustrating for the resident /resident’s daughter, given their previous experience and the landlord’s own acknowledgement that it had not previously delivered works to a good standard. Although this work was rectified on 8 January 2021, this again did not reflect a high-quality service.
What’s more, as the landlord had agreed to undertake the plastering works on 21 December 2020, and with Christmas approaching, the Ombudsman appreciates that it would have been disappointing to learn that the works had been cancelled. This was worsened by the fact that the resident’s daughter had chased this appointment earlier in the day and been given assurance that it would take place. The Ombudsman accepts that there will be times when jobs do overrun, and therefore operatives are unable to honour appointments. It was acceptable that the landlord subsequently arranged for this work to be completed on the following day. It is noted still that this caused considerable distress for the resident’s daughter.
It was therefore appropriate that in light of the resident’s upset, the landlord offered a complaint response. The Ombudsman is satisfied that within this it offered an apology for the distress this caused and offered a full explanation as to why the cancellation had occurred. This was proportionate. It does not appear, however, that the landlord used this opportunity to consider the resident’s / resident’s daughter’s full experience, despite the resident’s daughter’s assertion that she was unhappy with the whole process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable to have done so here, to have set out whether it had raised the matter with its contractors and how it sought to improve the quality of service offered moving forward, and to have recognised the disruption this had caused in completing the works.
Additionally, it might have been reasonable for the landlord to have re-opened the resident’s previous complaint and addressed this matter as a stage two complaint response. The Ombudsman accepts, however, that the landlord did not do this as the timeframe to escalate the previous complaint had elapsed.
On 24 February 2021 where the landlord did offer its stage two response, it was reasonable that it recognised that there were problems with the standard and performance of the service offered, and that it advised the resident of the measures it would be taking to improve the installation process, to improve the oversight of works, and to respond quickly to faults. In the Ombudsman’s view, this approach was fair.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the overall service would have been heightened by the ongoing issues that he experienced at this time. With the heating system continuously failing, the resident was frequently forced to contact the landlord to return to his property to address the heating system. It was therefore fair that the landlord considered this too (although separately). The Ombudsman has seen that all residents who experienced similar issues where offered similar levels of compensation, based on their circumstance and in the Ombudsman’s view, the offer made to the resident was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
Still, however, the landlord failed to recognise the delay which resulted from unsatisfactory jobs which had to be rearranged and rectified. From the landlord’s notes, the Ombudsman can see that it was originally suggested that the installation would be completed over the course of four days, however by the time of the landlord’s final response in February 2021, there were still works outstanding.
This included external works, such as the filling of holes, painting, and the blue pellets reported in October 2020. It appears that this work was overlooked as the landlord concluded that there were no outstanding matters within its final response.
The Ombudsman is therefore not satisfied that the landlord did enough to acknowledge the resident’s full experience in respect of its delay in completing all works and the impact that the whole process would have had on his ability to enjoy his home. The landlord failed to manage / meet the resident’s expectation both in regard to the standard of service and the timescale for completion.
It was fair that it recognised that the issues experienced may have delayed works to the loft and as such, proposed to extend the period in which it would reimburse the resident for storage costs – from one month to three months. This was fair given that the delay in commencing these works partly rested on the speed in which the resident emptied the loft and the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident had confirmed this for the landlord for several months.
The Ombudsman has additionally not considered the fact that this work remained outstanding to be an omission, as it is noted that the landlord had been waiting for the go ahead from the resident. The landlord reminded the resident that it was ready to undertake this within its complaint response on 4 January 2021.
Still, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord recognised that the workmanship was unsatisfactory, it did not properly acknowledge the knock-on effect this had. This, coupled with its failure to address the outstanding matters, meant that its final response fell short of putting things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) heating system, and the works which surrounded this.

Reasons

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to do enough to acknowledge the extent of the inconvenience caused by the installation of the new heating system, and the works which surrounded this. In consideration of the resident’s full experience, it is clear that the quality of service had fallen short and while the landlord accepted this, and appropriately set out how it sought to improve the service provided by its contractors, it did not make an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact this would have had on the resident (outside of the faults which occurred with the heating system). The landlord subsequently failed to use its stage two response as an opportunity to put things right. It was also inappropriate that works remained outstanding after this time, and no specific dates were proposed to assure the resident that this would be completed.

Orders and recommendations

Order

In recognition of the resident’s experience, the landlord should make an award of £200. This is in line with the level of compensation offered under its compensation policy where there has been a medium impact, or a clear injustice to the resident and its service has markedly failed to meet the required standards.
The above payment should be made within four weeks of receiving this report.
If the landlord has not done so already, it should also re-inspect the resident’s lawn to ensure that the blue pellets have been cleared and should fill / paint the holes created by the insulation contractors within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should also honour its previous offers of compensation and should endeavour to make these payments at the same time as the above order.
The landlord should honour its offer to reimburse the resident for three–months storage.
The landlord should ensure that it puts into practice the steps it highlighted within its final response to improve the quality of service provided by its staff and contractors. This will enable it to get things right on the first attempt in future instances.