Estuary Housing Association Limited (202229714)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229714

Estuary Housing Association Limited

17 April 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repairs.
2. The landlord’s engagement with the resident regarding his concerns around vulnerability.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom mid terrace house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team on 20 November 2022, to report that he had no heating or hot water since the previous day, 19 November 2022. The landlord attended the property on 20, 22 and 23 November 2022 to complete repairs but was unable to complete repairs to the boiler.
The resident made a formal complaint by phone to the landlord on 24 November 2022. In summary, he stated as follows;
1. That he had issues with his boiler and had had no heating or hot water since 19 November 2022.
2. That the landlord’s staff had instructed the contractors to order parts but the contractors had informed him that the boiler needed to be replaced.
3. That the error codes on the boiler meant that it needed to be scrapped.
4. That he was a full-time carer and had vulnerable people living with him who struggled with their mental health.
5. That he was using an electric heater which were expensive to run
6. That there were other outstanding repairs, including a cracked kitchen wall.
7. That the contractor was not prepared for his visit when he attended to complete repairs.
8. That the landlord was failing him as a resident under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 November 2022, and issued a stage 1 response on 13 December 2022. In summary, it stated as follows;
1. It apologised to the resident.
2. It advised that sometimes gas appliances required spare parts when they are maintained to keep them fully functional and safe.
3. It explained that the codes on the boiler were for parts that were readily available, known to potentially fail or wear out and economically repairable.
4. That the parts were replaced due to the age of the appliance and faults encountered and the boiler was economically repairable.
5. That it had not been notified of the fact that the resident was a full-time carer or had vulnerable people living with him who struggled with mental health.
6. That the resident should contact his housing officer who would be able to check with him and have their details added to the records and notification systems.
7. That there was an allowance for using temporary heaters and it would contact the resident once it confirmed the level of allowance due to him.
8. That it was not possible for an engineer to have every part of every boiler with them, and sometimes while fixing an appliance it can become apparent that more parts are required.
9. That it had fitted a new boiler which had operated reliably since being installed.
10. That it found no evidence of wrongdoing or service failure and his complaint was not upheld.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 December 2022 stating that he did not agree with the landlord’s decision at stage 1 and wanted an explanation about how the landlord had not failed its duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 January 2023. In summary, it stated as follows;
1. That the resident was without heating and hot water from 19 November 2022 until 6 December 2022
2. That the engineer reported the relevant fault codes on the boiler indicated that the failure was due to consumable parts which could be replaced, unfortunately this did not fix the boiler and a new boiler was fitted.
3. It agreed that there is a legal obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.to ensure that the property is maintained in a habitable condition. It explained that it was unable to complete the repair within a 24-hour time scale due to the nature of the breakdown and therefore temporary heaters were provided by its contractors.
4. It stated that it was reasonable for residents to make their own arrangements for hot water as a temporary measure unless the resident advised that there was a disabled person living within the property who had additional needs.
5. It stated it was not notified that the resident’s household had any such concerns and therefore alternative arrangements were not offered.
6. That it had not breached the act or any internal policy so the complaint was not upheld.
7. It apologised for the inconvenience caused for the period without heating and hot water.
8. That £112 statutory payment calculated as £7 per day from 19 November 2022 until 6 December 2022 will be issued as compensation.
After the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident contacted the landlord to say some of the information provided in the stage 2 response was incorrect, such as the landlord stating that it provided him with heaters and it was not informed of any vulnerabilities in the property. The landlord responded to the resident’s points above on 15 February 2023. It confirmed that it provided the resident with supplementary heating whilst it arranged a full repair. It also said it had reviewed all contact records with the resident and his wife and could not find any details regarding disability and apologised if the resident had previously advised the housing officer regarding this because it had not been recorded. It asked the resident to contact the housing officer to update his information.
The resident contacted this Service, stating he was unhappy with the delay in carrying out the boiler repair and the landlord stating it had no knowledge of vulnerable residents in the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Service has not considered the complaint points raised about outstanding repairs in the property including a cracked kitchen wall. This is because resident has informed this Service that he has an ongoing complaint with the landlord about this issue which has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure.” In this case the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident may be able to bring this complaint about outstanding repairs, including the cracked kitchen walls, to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repairs.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are to be commenced immediately and no later than 4 hours and completed or made safe within 24 hours. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1885 state that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation in the dwelling for space heating and heating water.
This service would expect that when emergency repairs are raised, the landlord should respond according to its obligations set out in its tenancy agreement. In this case, the resident reported an emergency repair on 20 November 2022 and the landlord attended the same day and tried to fix the problem. Its contractors also attended on 22 and 23 November 2022. It ordered for parts for the boiler and attempted to complete repairs but discovered that a new boiler had to be installed. It was reasonable for the landlord to act on the advice of professionals when it attempted to fix the issue with the boiler. It acted reasonably in installing a new boiler after it realised that the boiler repair could not be completed with the new parts ordered.
The landlord responded to the emergency repair within its timeframe for emergency repairs and was proactive in trying to complete repairs, this was reasonable and in line with this Service expectation regarding completing emergency repairs. In circumstances where repairs cannot be completed promptly due to parts needing to be ordered, such as this case where a new boiler had to be installed it is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide alternative heating arrangements. This is also in line with the expectations in the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1885 which states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installation in the dwelling for space heating and heating water.
The landlord’s repair record does not provide any evidence showing that the resident was given heaters even though it states this in its complaint response. However, its phone log of 24 November 2022 noted that the resident was offered heaters but declined this due to the cost of running them. The resident also confirmed this during a phone call with this Service. The landlord has a duty to maintain and upkeep accurate records. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman has accepted the resident’s account.
The landlord in its complaint response offered the resident statutory compensation for running the heaters of £112 calculated at £7 per day. It accepted that the resident would have been inconvenienced by not having access to heating and water for around 3 weeks. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation towards the cost of the heaters. However, it did not offer any compensation towards the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
In this situation as an attempt to put things right for the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer additional compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience he experienced with regards to not having access to a boiler for almost 3 weeks. This was a failing by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £100 to £600 should be considered for failings that have caused an adverse effect to the resident. Because of this, this Service has made a finding of service failure and an order of a further £200 compensation has been made to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s engagement with the resident regarding his concerns around vulnerability.

The landlord in its complaint responses stated that it was not aware that the resident had people in the property who were disabled, had mental health issues or additional needs therefore alternative arrangements were not offered. The landlord’s vulnerable user policy states in summary as follows;
1. that it aims to identify vulnerability so that it understands resident’s individual needs and act accordingly.
2. It understands that vulnerability is often not a fixed condition, so it would take a view on this based on the individual’s situation and reflect changing circumstances.
3. It would enable residents to advise it of any support needs in different ways, including in person, in writing, by telephone, online or via a third party such as adult services.
4. It would attempt to identify support needs at the earliest stages of the tenancy by asking questions during the applications stage and where necessary make referrals to the most appropriate agency who can meet these needs not notified that the resident’s household had any such concerns and therefore alternative arrangements were not offered.
The resident informed this Service, that when he initially completed the tenancy application, he stated that he had a disabled child and his wife had a mental health condition. He was not able to provide any evidence to support this, but it is reasonable to assume based on the landlord’s vulnerable user policy this question was asked during the application stages. The landlord does not have any record of the resident living with people that are vulnerable, it suggests that the resident might have informed his housing officer but it had no record of this. This Service is unable to form a view about whether the landlord had record of vulnerability prior to the resident making a complaint because there is no evidence supporting or disproving this. The landlord has not kept adequate records around this and it is a failure by the landlord. This Service will be making a recommendation regarding the landlord’s record keeping at the end of this report.
However, this Service does have evidence to show that the resident did inform the landlord about vulnerability in his household when he made the complaint on 24 November 2022. The landlord’s phone records noted that he stated he was a full-time carer and had vulnerable people living with him who struggled with their mental health. The landlord’s vulnerable user policy enables residents to advise it of any support needs in different ways, including in person, in writing, by telephone.
As the resident advised the landlord of vulnerable people in his household on 24 November 2022. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the resident after he made the complaint to discuss this vulnerability with him and to offer support such as making the order of a new boiler a priority request and show some empathy and reassurance that it understood there were vulnerable people in the household.
It is noted that the landlord asked the resident in its stage 1 response to provide information to his housing officer regarding the vulnerabilities in the household, and subsequently sent the resident communication after the conclusion of its complaints process requesting information around the vulnerabilities so the resident’s records could be updated. Although, the landlord subsequently took some actions to investigate the residents’ concerns around vulnerability in his household, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified these concerns earlier, before issuing its stage 1 response.
In this case prior to issuing its stage 1 response, the landlord has not provided this Service any evidence to show it contacted the resident to discuss his concerns around living with vulnerable people in his household. Instead, it insisted that it had no records of any vulnerability even after the resident had informed it during the phone call of 24 November 2022. This would have led to the resident not feeling supported by the landlord and made him feel further distress and inconvenience during an already stressful situation of not having access to heating or hot water. This lack of early engagement on acting on the residents’ concerns around vulnerability in his household was not reasonable and was a failing by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that the resident had not notified it that the resident’s household had any concerns arounds vulnerability and therefore alternative arrangements were not offered. This statement was not accurate as the resident informed the landlord of vulnerabilities during his phone call of 24 November 2022. The landlord’s incorrect statement regarding the resident’s communication would have led to the resident feeling like his complaint was not being taken seriously and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
There was a failure by the landlord to engage at an early stage with the resident regarding his concerns around vulnerability and incorrect information provided by the landlord in its stage 2 response. Because of this, this Service has made a finding of service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around vulnerability and an order of compensation has been made to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its engagement with the resident regarding his concerns around vulnerability.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £462. This £462 is comprised as follows:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s boiler repairs.
2. £150 for failures in respect of its engagement with the resident regarding his concerns around vulnerability.
3. £112 statutory payment previously offered by the landlord in relation to electricity costs if this has not already been paid to the resident.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its vulnerable user policy to ensure that it makes it easy to identify early when it can aid vulnerable users.