Bromford Housing Group Limited (202215674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215674

Bromford Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident has experienced ongoing issues with the condition of the boiler in the property for at least two years. The landlord’s repair logs state that work orders were raised following reports of the boiler not working correctly on 15 October 2020, 20 March 2021, 11 November 2021 and 19 April 2022.
4. On 6 October 2022, during the annual gas safety check, the operative found the boiler to be in an unsafe condition due to the flue pipe being corroded and leaking. The boiler was capped, and a warning label attached. The contractor arranged an appointment for 14 October 2022 to fit replacement parts to resolve the issue. However, this work did not go ahead as the engineer who attended found that the wrong parts has been ordered.
5. The resident called the landlord on 17 October 2022 and requested to raise a complaint about its handling the issue. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the resident’s complaint as:
   1. The gas boiler had been turned off during the annual gas safety inspection as it had been found to be heavily corroded and rusty. The resident was informed by an operative that “he was lucky to be alive”. This had left him without hot water or heating since 6 October 2022.
   2. The resident had arranged for his own surveyor to inspect the boiler, who informed him that the boiler was in a bad state and had been in that condition for at least 18 months to two years. He expressed his dissatisfaction that this issue was not picked up earlier by the landlord’s contractor.
   3. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of service he had received from the landlord’s heating contractor and did not want them to undertake any further repairs or inspections to his property.
   4. The resident had developed a medical condition caused by the faulty boiler. He had spoken to a solicitor about this matter and had been advised that he could expect to receive £20,000 if he took the matter to court.
   5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted to have the heating and hot water restored, for the heating contractor to no longer attend his property, an explanation of how the boiler had deteriorated to such a dangerous condition, and compensation.
6. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 October 2022. It then arranged for an in-house gas engineer to inspect the boiler on 4 November 2022. They determined that the boiler needed to be replaced, and a new boiler was installed on 7 November 2022. The landlord then sent a stage two complaint response on 21 December 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for not acknowledging his complaint within its five working day timescale and for not calling the resident at stage one to discuss the complaint. The landlord also accepted that the stage one complaint response had not addressed all the elements of the complaint raised by the resident.
   2. Provided the resident with copies of the gas safety certificates and the work notes for the repairs made to the boiler since 2019. It explained that during the 6 October 2022 inspection its contractor found the boiler was not safe to use as the flue was corraded and required replacement. The contractor attended again on 14 October 2022 but was unable to rectify the issue as they had the wrong flue needed to complete the repair. The contractor stated that it left a fan heater with the resident during this visit.
   3. Explained that its engineer who inspected the boiler on 4 November 2022 had found that “the boiler has severe corrosion on the top of the casing. The corrosion has not penetrated the internal casing but has damaged the flue turret, compromising the integrity of the boiler. There is also corrosion inside the boiler, which has caused the condense pipe to perish”. The engineer recommended that the boiler be replaced. The new boiler was installed on 7 November 2022.
   4. Informed the resident that it had spoken with the contactor’s operatives and its own staff members who had visited his property, all of whom denied that they had informed the resident that “he was lucky to be alive”. The landlord explained that while there was severe corrosion present on the flue casing, that the inner plastic flue casing has not been penetrated, therefore there had been no escape of CO2 fumes and no risk to health from the boiler. The landlord also provided the resident with photographs taken during the 4 November 2022 inspection with showed the intact inner flue casing.
   5. Explained that the corrosion to the boiler had been caused by a water leak. The landlord had asked its technical experts whether this damage could have been present for up to two years. The landlord stated it had been informed that the damage could have occurred since the previous inspection of the boiler undertaken on 9 November 2021. It therefore did not concur with the resident’s opinion that the damage had been present for 18 months to two years and should have been picked up in previous inspections.
   6. Noted the resident’s request that its heating contractor no longer attend his property. It explained that the resident had the right to refuse the contractor’s attendance, and that if he did so the landlord would arrange for its own engineers to carry out any repairs or gas safety checks.
   7. Apologised to the resident the poor service he experienced. It accepted it did not properly handle the complaint at stage one, that the temporary heating provided to the resident was not adequate, and the length of time it took it to replace the boiler was not acceptable. The landlord explained that boilers are expected to be replaced within five days and the resident was without a working boiler for 32 days, a delay of 27 days.
   8. Offered the resident £823.24 compensation, which it broke down as:
      1. £20 for acknowledging the complaint outside its 5 working day timescale.
      2. £20 for its failure to call the resident to discuss the complaint.
      3. £100 for not properly responding to the complaint at stage one.
      4. £135 for the delay in replacing the boiler (£5 per day for 27 days).
      5. £270 for the loss of heating and hot water (£10 per day for 27 days).
      6. £278.24 10% adjustment of rent (£10.305 per day for 27 days).
   9. In regard to the resident comments on making a personal injury claim, the landlord advised the resident to seek legal advice from a solicitor and also provided information on how he could submit a formal claim to its insurance provider.
7. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord and its contractor put his life at risk and this was not properly addressed in its complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

8. In his correspondence with the landlord and with this Service, the resident has stated that he has contracted a health condition as a result of living in the property with the damaged boiler. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Such matters are more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim by the courts. That is something the resident would need to obtain his own legal advice on if he wished to pursue.

Relevant policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (respond within two or 24 hours) and “Appointed” (attend at a time and date agreed with the tenant). The landlord defines an emergency repair as a repair that “pose a risk or significant impact to the safety and/or welfare of the customer and/or property”. While the policy does not provide any timescales for appointed repairs, the landlord has stated that it expects a boiler replacement to be completed within five calendar days.
10. The landlord’s procurement and commercial policy states that all procurement activity must:
    1. “Aim to secure Value for Money.
    2. Be consistent with the highest standards of integrity.
    3. Ensure fairness, objectivity and transparency in awarding contracts.
    4. Ensure that [the landlord] comply with all legislative requirements.
    5. Support and enable the delivery of [the landlord’s] Strategy.”
11. The policy also states that these principles “[apply] to all Colleagues of [landlord], subsidiary companies or organisations within [the landlord’s] control and any persons and or organisations acting on behalf of the business”.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a discretionary compensation payment calculated in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) for instances of “service failure, maladministration, financial loss and distress and inconvenience”.

Repairs to the boiler

13. When informed by the resident of his dissatisfaction with how it and its contractor had responded to his reports of the condition of the boiler, the landlord has a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
14. The landlord has acknowledged that the resident received a poor service from it and its contractor. It has accepted that when the gas safety inspection found the boiler’s condition to be not safe it should have been replaced within five calendar days, the resident should have received more updates on the status of the work, and provided with temporary heating.
15. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by replacing the boiler and offering £683.24 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its customer service. The landlord’s internal correspondence, which was summarised in the stage two complaint response, stated that the resident’s complaint had highlighted issues with how the landlord offered temporary heating, how it considered offering a household a temporary move until a repair is completed (particularly in circumstances similar to the resident where the seriousness of the situation it not readily apparent from the first appointment), and how it provides updates to a resident on the status of outstanding repairs.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy states that when calculating compensation, it follows the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. This recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Accordingly, the compensation offered by the landlord recognised the 27-day delay in replacing the boiler, that the resident was without suitable heating and hot water during this period, the distress and inconvenience caused, and the poor level of communication with the resident. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the scale and circumstances of the repair and complaint.
18. The resident has stated his dissatisfaction that the landlord did not properly investigate his complaint that it and its contractor put his life at risk. The resident has also said to this service that an engineer informed him that it was “a miracle that he was still alive”, although it is not clear if this engineer was employed by the landlord, the contractor or an independent engineer commissioned by the resident.
19. In line with its procurement and commercial policy detailed above that landlord would be expected to ensure its contractor operated in line with its listed principles. As part of the evidence it provided for the case, the landlord provided its stage two case notes. This included interviews with the landlord’s head of compliance and the heating engineer who inspected the boiler on 4 November 2022. The findings of these interviews were included in the stage two response, where the landlord informed the resident that while the flue was corroded, the inner plastic casing was intact. The landlord also informed the resident that the CO2 monitor was tested during the 6 October 2022 inspection and found to be working, but that a new monitor was fitted alongside the new boiler. The landlord also investigated the resident’s allegation that an operative had told him that he was “lucky to be alive” it interviewed its staff members who had attended the resident’s property and asked its contractor to interview its staff members who had attended. All the operatives denied making the comment.
20. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord’s actions put the resident’s life in danger. The landlord acted appropriately by interviewing its staff members to ensure that the condition of the boiler prior to it being replaced was not a health risk, to confirm that the damage to the boiler could have occurred after the November 2021 inspection, and to determine whether any of the operatives who had visited the property informed the resident that he was “lucky to be alive”. It then informed the resident of its findings in the stage two complaint response. The resident has disputed the landlord’s conclusions and has stated that he commissioned an independent surveyor to inspect the original boiler who supported his position. However, the resident has not provided an inspection report from the independent surveyor to either the landlord or to this Service.
21. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the professional opinions of its staff members. It is clear that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s findings, however, nothing in the evidence seen in this investigation contradicts the landlord’s explanations or decisions.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(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 satisfactorily.

Recommendations

23. As the finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s compensation offer of £683.24 for its service failure in how it handled the boiler repair and £140 for its poor complaint handling at stage one (a total of £823.24), it is recommended that the landlord now pays this to the resident if it has not done so already.