English Rural Housing Association Limited (202006486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006486

English Rural Housing Association Limited

1 March 2021

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 repairs to the heating and hot water system in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

On 7 May 2019, the landlord’s contractor serviced the resident’s boiler. Its operative noted that the system was clogged and a further appointment was organised for the situation to be assessed to see if anything could be done to resolve it. The resident had noticed that the radiators in the property were not getting as warm as he would expect when the heating was on.
At the second appointment it was identified that the system needed “flushing”. The resident understood this to mean that it was intended that both the boiler and the radiators would be done, being the system as a whole. The contractor subsequently attended the property for this purpose. The resident submits that they only flushed the boiler but the contractor disputed this. The resident reports that there was a subsequent telephone discussion during which it was suggested that a new heat exchanger should be installed and he queried how this would help in the absence of the radiators having been power flushed.
On 20 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord, detailing the above chronology, and asking it to intervene.
By 26 June 2019, the contractor had attended the property again and replaced the heat exchanger but the resident was still questioning how the flush had been carried out. The landlord responded that it agreed the individual radiators in the property would need draining and flushing. Following some liaison between the landlord and its contractor a further appointment was made to attend the property on 2 July 2019 for this to be carried out.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 5 July 2019, he stated that when he tried to heat water with his boiler (as opposed to using the immersion heater, as he typically would) the radiators in the house were warming up even though the heating was turned off. He expressed his frustration at what he saw as a continuous stream of repairs and appointments. He summarised that, historically, the pump had been changed a number of times; he had had three replacement immersion heater rods; he had had four new radiators installed; and more recently he had had to accommodate further appointments because the power flush had not been carried out properly and its contractor had not accepted this or apologised. He asked for an update on what the landlord was going to do about the situation. The landlord responded that it was awaiting a report from its contractor.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 12 July 2019, stating that its contractor had attended the previous day to fix the latest problem but, when he had switched the hot water on that morning, the same thing had happened. He summarised that problems were first noted when the boiler was serviced on 7 May 2019 and the problem was “assessed” on 11 May 2019. Since then he had had four visits (to flush the boiler and radiators, install a new pump, and have new components fitted) and he had had to set aside five half days to be available for appointments. He stated that if he were paying for the service himself, he would have stopped using the contractor and pursued compensation. He questioned how much these repeat visits were costing the landlord and when the problem was going to be fixed properly.
The landlord reported the situation to its contractor and obtained a chronology of visits which it supplied to the resident. An appointment was made for 19 July 2019 for the problem to be looked at again.
On 8 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to report that its contractor had been to change a radiator which had not been working properly after the system had been flushed. He noted that it was “far smaller” then the previous one and asked why it had not been replaced “like for like”. He was concerned that the room would not be as warm over the winter and that the replacement radiator would have to be changed again. He reported his feelings of frustration at having another grievance against the landlord’s contractor.
In the landlord’s response of 14 August 2019, it explained, that whilst the new radiator was “marginally smaller”, it would produce as much heat as the previous one. In the resident’s reply he asked whether he could get his own contractor to change the radiator to one of the original size.

On 27 August 2019, there was a series of emails between landlord and resident. The landlord confirmed its contractor’s view that the radiator was adequate for the room, advised that it would not be replaced, and explained that it was not open to the resident to do it independently. The resident asserted that the smaller size of the radiator meant he now had to redecorate the room. Further he was still experiencing problems with the radiators coming on upstairs when the hot water was on.
The landlord responded indicating that it had understood that this issue had been resolved but it would instruct its contractor to attend again. It confirmed that it would feed back to its contractor about rubbish being left after jobs which the resident had also raised as an issue.
On 2 October 2019, the resident reported the up-to-date position to the landlord. Its contractor had attended again and suggested a number of different options to deal with the heating system. After liaising with their office/the landlord, the operative had been instructed to fit valves to the individual radiators. However, after this had been done and the heating switched on, the system was making a constant noise. The operative agreed that it was unacceptable and had stated that they would report back to the landlord to see what it could do.
The landlord’s contractor then provided its view of the situation. It considered that the problem identified after the boiler service and the problem with the radiators heating when the hot water was put on, were two separate issues. The second problem was identified as “reverse circulation” and the resident had confirmed that this had been an issue going back 12 years. It was a difficult issue to diagnose and there was no straightforward solution to it.
The valves the contractor had installed on the radiators had resolved the issue but the system was now noisy because they placed restrictions on it. The solution was to reverse this work (which would leave the system as it was) or to alter the pipework, but this would involve moving furniture and carpets and lifting the floorboards and could be disruptive and expensive. As an alternative, it was suggested that a new boiler be installed. Whilst this was likely to be expensive, it might still be more cost effective than trying to identify and replace the offending pipework.
On 21 October 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that an electrician had attended to deal with another problem with the heating and hot water. This time putting the heating on was triggering the immersion heater, rather than the hot water heating the radiators up. The electrician had identified a valve that was “sticking” – one which the resident understood had already been changed three times. He also reported that a surveyor was attending the next day to consider the possible installation of the new boiler.
In the landlord’s email of 5 November 2019, it confirmed that, due to the heating issues the resident was experiencing, it was authorising a new boiler to be fitted and its contractor would be in touch shortly to arrange the work. On 7 November 2019, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the contractor had attended the previous day to fit the boiler. However, the input of an electrician was required and, having originally confirmed they would be there in the afternoon, they then pulled out of the job stating that it was too far to travel. The resident had been left with no heating overnight and would have to accommodate another visit on the following Monday.
The following day the resident reported further problems. He stated that the landlord had instructed its contractor to remove the valves it had installed on all the radiators. This had involved the pipes being cut to instal the valves and then having to be replaced when the valves were removed. He reported that, during this process, there was “considerable water spillage” onto his wooden flooring and the water had seeped underneath it. He felt that, in time, the floor would buckle and need replacing. He referred to the downstairs cloakroom as being worst affected by this. He asked whether he should get a quote for the damage for the landlord’s consideration or whether the landlord wanted to involve its insurer.
The landlord replied suggesting that the resident contact his contents insurance provider and confirming that it would pass his comments on to its contractor. The resident responded, expressing surprise at the suggestion that it was his insurance that was relevant. He stated that the landlord was responsible for whatever its contractor did in his home and that any claim should be made against its insurance. He set out a list of all the remedial work required so far as a result of the work done by the contractor, including making good holes, painting and decorating affected areas, and tiling work, in addition to the flooring issue he had highlighted. The landlord responded that its contractor would liaise directly with him regarding the issues he had raised.
On 1 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had suffered a leak from his hallway radiator that day. He stated that he had suffered a previous leak from his bathroom radiator. He confirmed that he had called the landlord’s out of hours service which had taken 10 ½ hours to arrive, during which time he had had to mop up the water continuously with towels. The water had leaked onto his skirting board and wooden flooring.
On 12 January 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about damage caused to his property by its contractors in effecting repairs. He stated that there had been 15 appointments over 11 months. The landlord had already denied responsibility for the damage, advising him to claim on his own insurance, but he did not have any. He complained that the landlord had advised him that it was his responsibility to resolve the matter directly with the contractor.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 17 January 2020 it noted that the resident was unhappy with “the timeliness, quality and competence of the repairs service”. It summarised that this related to repairs to the immersion cylinder/element replacement and the heating/boiler. It understood that he was unhappy with its approach to diagnosing problems, his view being that it had gone on for too long with poor communication along the way. It stated that the circumstances of diagnosing the problem had been “complex” but it sympathised with the resident’s point of view. It agreed that “at times the service has fallen short of expectations”.
The landlord recognised that the situation had caused the resident frustration and inconvenience and that he now needed to undertake tasks to remedy issues. It offered a goodwill payment of £150 together with a £50 voucher for decorating materials. It confirmed that the situation would be discussed internally so that it could learn from the complaint and prevent the same issues happening again.
On 3 March 2020, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the complaint further and, on 12 March 2020, it issued a stage 2 response. Having inspected the work, both the landlord and contractor accepted that it had not been carried out to an acceptable standard. It noted that an appointment had been made for 19 March 2020 for its contractor to attend to arrange for remedial work and an audit of the work it had already done.
The landlord asserted that the leak in the hallway/WC when the valves had been removed had not, in its view, caused any permanent damage. On the question of the tiling to the kitchen, it accepted that by removing the redundant boiler, an area had been exposed that now needed to be tiled and it agreed to organise this work. It also agreed to investigate a noise issue when the cistern was filling up. It apologised that the work had not met its standards and re-offered the good will payment of £150 with an increased offer of £100 in vouchers towards decorating materials. It stated that the wall areas which had been reported as “dirty” could be restored with decoration.
On 15 March 2020, the landlord confirmed that the tiling would be done but by a different entity. In the meantime, it maintained that its contractor should have the opportunity to rectify any other issues in the first instance. On 26 March 2020 the contractor attended the property for the final time.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the installations in the property for space and water heating. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of a faulty heating system and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
Whilst any landlord and its residents would wish repairs to be diagnosed and effected in one visit, this is not, unfortunately, always possible. The fact that a repair is necessary and that a resident must facilitate access to their property to resolve it, does not, in itself, amount to a failing on the landlord’s part or to a right to compensation. That only arises where there has been a failure to deal with the repair efficiently and competently.
In this case, an issue was identified with the resident’s heating system following a boiler service and it was found that a “power flush” was necessary. There is a disagreement as to whether this was carried out properly as the resident considers that the action taken may not have been extensive enough. Given that the exercise had to be repeated with a wider scope, it is reasonable to conclude that the contractor did not complete it fully in the first instance. This resulted in inconvenience to the resident in having to chase the work up and accommodate further appointments, and it represented a service failing on the landlord’s part.
A further issue then arose in summer 2019. The contractor asserts that this was a separate issue and it was difficult to diagnose and find a solution to. There is no evidence to contradict this view and this Service is not able to offer an ‘expert’ opinion on it. However, the timeline of this matter shows much ‘toing and froing’. In particular, one major task, involving installing valves to all the radiators in the property, was then reversed, suggesting that it may not have been the right approach in the first instance. This would have caused much upheaval to the resident, as the operative would have been systematically working in every part of his home, and this was repeated when the valves were removed.
Following this, a new boiler was agreed upon as a remedy and its installation resulted in tiling and redecoration becoming necessary. This does not necessarily mean the landlord failed in its responsibilities, but it came at the end of a prolonged repair history and the resident reasonably reported his exasperation at the situation. This was then exacerbated by the fact that, following the boiler installation, there were further problems including an out of hours call out for a leaking radiator.
The landlord and contractor have inspected the property and the completed works and have accepted that it is not to the standard of workmanship expected. The landlord therefore agreed that there had been failings in the service it had provided to the resident and this was an appropriate response to the complaint.
In light of those failings, the landlord agreed to arrange and finance the outstanding tiling and offered £100 decorating vouchers. Given that the resident has been caused much inconvenience and stress and the evidence suggests that he will need to carry out at least some redecoration as a result of the landlord’s actions, this was an appropriate and proportionate offer for the landlord to make in that regard.
The landlord operates a policy and procedure to deal with claims for compensation from its tenants. It states that it will consider compensation requests where the resident has suffered financial hardship, inconvenience or distress as a result of any failure on its part to meet its service standards. The policy does not give any guidance on how compensation should be calculated or specify amounts of compensation for particular circumstances and it is, therefore, not clear how the landlord reached its final figure of £150.
The Ombudsman offers guidance on the calculation of compensation which can be referred to in the absence of the landlord’s policy doing so. It provides for awards of between £50 – £250 where there has been service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, but which is likely to be of short duration. Awards of £250 – £700 are envisaged where the service failure is more severe but, again, there is no permanent impact. Awards over £750 are envisaged where the impact has been/will be severe and/or long term.
In this case the resident has been put to significant time and trouble in pursuing a solution to his situation. He has had to accommodate numerous appointments and have tradespersons in his home repeating and reversing work. He has also had to deal with a leak and has further work to do in his home. However, there should be no long–term consequences to the landlord’s failings. As a result, the resident is assessed as falling just inside the second category detailed above. Accordingly, compensation of £300 is considered reasonable.
No remedy is being given in respect of any damage to the resident’s flooring. This is because no evidence has been produced to confirm such damage has been done or to quantify what it would cost to rectify it if it were proved to be present. Further, this Service is unable to determine matters of causation and liability in terms of how a landlord’s actions might have caused damage to a resident’s personal belongings. Such issues would be better dealt with as an insurance claim, whether through the landlord’s or the resident’s insurer, rather than as a formal complaint, so that the appropriate evidence can be properly reviewed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.

Reasons

The landlord and its contractor have accepted that the works were not completed to an acceptable standard. In addition, work had to be repeated because it was not done properly the first time, with some work reversed altogether. The resident has to undertake some remedial work himself by way of decoration and he has been put to significant time, trouble and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s service failings.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £300 compensation and £100 decorating vouchers. Any sum already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from this sum;
2. carry out the tiling it has agreed to do in the property if this has not already been done.