Great Places Housing Association (202010282)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010282

Great Places Housing Association

30 December 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s storage heaters, immersion heater, and electricity meter.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 14 October 2020 the resident reported that his storage heaters had not released any heat for the past 24 hours. The landlord records show it attended that day and replaced them. The resident reported on 16 October 2020 that two of the storage heaters were not working, and that he had no heating. The landlord provided temporary heaters on 19 October 2020. The landlord raised a work order to complete work to the storage heaters on 23 October 2020. The landlord and resident agreed for the appointment to take place on 29 October 2020. It is unclear whether this appointment went ahead.
  3. The landlord’s records indicate contractors attended on 21 October 2020 in response to unrelated repair issues. It is understood that there was an incident between the resident and contractors which led to the contractors putting a “no lone visit” note on his file.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 October 2020. He said contractors were at his property and had discovered that the landlord had not fit the storage heaters correctly. He asked for compensation for the increased electricity costs from using temporary heaters.
  5. The landlord raised a work order on 11 November 2020 to replace the storage heaters. It is unclear whether this was completed.
  6. The resident logged a formal complaint on 28 November 2020. He said he had not had heating since October. He said the temporary heaters did not heat up his property sufficiently. He said he wanted compensation for the electricity costs, and inconvenience caused.
  7. The landlord’s records from 30 November 2020 show it noted that the issue with the storage heaters was related to the resident’s electricity meter. The landlord said the resident needed to contact his utility provider to resolve the issue with the meter before it could test the storage heaters. It said it had cancelled further work until the meter was fixed.
  8. The landlord’s records from 3 December 2020 show it discussed whether to raise the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint following further contact from him. It said it had provided the resident with bigger heaters the day before, and advised him that it needed his utility provider to fix the meter.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2020. He said this was “a serious complaint [he had reported] many times now to no response”. He said he had not had heating since October. He said the temporary heaters were not cost effective. He reiterated his request for compensation.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 December 2020. It said the issue with his storage heaters could not be resolved until he had a new electricity meter fitted (which was due to happen that day). It said it had provided two new temporary heaters.
  11. The landlord’s records from 18 December 2020 show it noted there was a manufacturing software issue with the storage heaters, but the resident would not allow access to resolve it (it is unclear when it had attempted to gain access). It said the only outstanding work was to a hot water cylinder in the immersion heater which was arranged for 21 December 2020 (it is unclear when the immersion heater issue arose). This appointment was later cancelled as the contractor refused to attend due to the resident making “offensive and abusive calls”.
  12. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 December 2020. He said he should not have had to contact his utility provider, and that the landlord “should have had all this checked before a tenant moved in”. He said it should pay the extra electricity costs he had incurred. The landlord emailed the resident on 23 December 2020 and said it would open a formal investigation after the Christmas break. The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2021.
  13. The landlord called the resident on 7 January 2021. Its records show they discussed the possibility of him being decanted (a temporary move) whilst work went ahead. The resident then advised the landlord on 19 January 2021 that he did not want to decant.
  14. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 January 2021. It said there had been a delay completing repairs to his heating system due to the need for multiple visits in order to trace and diagnose the fault.  It said the current delay was partially due to the no lone visit note on his file. It said its contractor had requested that he was not present whilst they attended. It said it provided temporary heaters on 19 October 2020. It said it took four days to raise a work order for the storage heaters. It apologised for the delay. It said it raised a further work order on 15 December 2020 following a visit. It said outstanding work to the resident’s immersion and storage heaters would take one and a half days. It recommended the resident was not present due to the disruption and inconvenience it would cause. It said he could decant to a hotel, decant to another property, or stay with family or friends. It asked him to advise which option he would prefer. It acknowledged there had been a delay carrying out repairs, which had caused an increase in electricity costs (due to the temporary heaters). It offered him £218 compensation. This comprised of £2 per day for the 89 days he had used the heaters, and an additional £40 for the delay. It provided information on how the resident could escalate his complaint.
  15. With regards to the work order raised on 15 December 2020, the landlord advised that as the immersion heater only had a 24hr supply and a single supply controller, it would need to install a new circuit in the Twin and Earth cable back to the off-peak consumer unit, although since raising the order it became aware that the immersion heater was “temporarily wired”. The landlord also noted that the resident’s electricity meter did not support the Economy 7 tariff which was an issue that he would need to resolve directly with his energy supplier.
  16. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 27 January 2021. He said it had not considered his mental health, and had not provided sufficient support. He said he did not want to move out for the repairs. He concluded by saying he would await the landlord’s response “in the time frame set out in [its] complaint procedure”.
  17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 28 January 2021. It asked him to confirm what outcome he would like to resolve the issues raised. On 3 February 2021 the resident said he was “willing to agree to level of compensation” for his increased electricity costs.
  18. Contractors attended on 15 and 16 February 2021 to check the storage and immersion heaters. Afterwards, the resident advised the landlord that he was he did not want the contractors to undertake any further work. The landlord said it was awaiting a technical report before it could respond further.
  19. The contractors reported it considered that the heaters were working correctly but that it suspected that the resident had isolated heaters overnight due to tamper labels being moved.  They stated that “if the tenant remain[ed] in the property it was impossible to prove that the heaters were working and that the tenant was not interfering with set up”. The contractors also noted that cables to the hot water cylinder had been moved and it is understood that they reconnected parts of the immersion heater which resolved the issue.
  20. On 5 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord when the matter would be resolved, and when he would receive his compensation.
  21. On 9 April 2021 the landlord asked the resident whether he accepted its offer of compensation. It said if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint.
  22. On 15 April 2021 the resident said he remained dissatisfied as he still had temporary heaters which were not cost effective. He said the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the length of time the issue had been ongoing. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 28 April 2021.
  23. The landlord advised the resident on 18 May 2021 that it would extend the deadline for its complaint response as the officer conducting the stage two review was away, and as an electrical inspection was due to take place the following day by independent contractors who had not previously visited. The resident responded and said he was dissatisfied with the delay. He asked the landlord to send all future correspondence in written format, and that “no men [were] welcome at [his] property until this ha[d] been done”.
  24. On 20 May 2021 the landlord updated the resident on his complaint. It advised that the scheduled inspection for 19 May 2021 was cancelled at his request. It said in order to continue its complaint investigation, it needed to carry out the inspection. It said the resident’s complaint was on hold until the investigation took place.
  25. On 21 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It asked him to advise when he was available for the inspection. It explained that it needed to inspect the heaters to ensure they were functional. It said this Service had requested it to issue its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged his mental health concerns, and asked if it could provide further support.
  26. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 21 July 2021. It explained what had happened since October 2020 in terms of its actions and communication with the resident. It said in order for it to continue its investigation it needed to carry out an electrical inspection of the resident’s heating by a different contractor to ensure that there was an independent assessment. It asked the resident to confirm his availability. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
  27. The resident has explained in his correspondence with this Service that he wanted the landlord to replace the storage heaters with oil heaters. He also said he wanted compensation and new carpets due to the contractors having made them dirty.
  28. The resident raised a new formal complaint to the landlord on 29 September 2021. He said his heaters still did not work. The landlord asked him on 15 October 2021 whether he would like it to raise a work order. It is unclear whether the issue has now been resolved.

Assessment and findings

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  2. The resident advised this Service that he wanted oil heaters, and a new carpet. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident raising these points with the landlord during its internal complaints procedure, which concluded on 21 July 2021. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this assessment will not look at these issues. A landlord should have the opportunity to resolve a complaint within its complaints procedure before this Service can assess its handling of the complaint.  Therefore, the resident should raise these points with the landlord first, and if he remains dissatisfied after the landlord has fully investigated them as formal complaints, he can bring them to this Service if necessary.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the resident is responsible for any appliance or installation which was not supplied by the landlord. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining any equipment it provided for heating, and hot water. The landlord aims to complete all routing repairs in one visit and aim to take as little time as possible. Routine repairs include “heating and/or hot water faults and breakdowns.”
  4. In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, he is required to allow access to the landlord and its contractors. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it can offer up to £50 when it has delayed carrying out a repair.

Storage heaters

  1. The resident reported that his storage heaters were not working on 14 October 2020. The landlord attended that day and replaced them, thereby taking prompt action to resolve the issue reported at that time.
  2. However, the resident reported further issues on 16 October 2020. The landlord provided temporary heaters on 19 October 2020, and raised a work order for follow on work on 23 October 2020. It went on to explain on 30 November 2020 that the issue with the storage heaters was related to his electrical meter and it advised the resident to resolve this with his utility provider. The landlord further explained on 18 December 2020 that the resident had refused access for work to be undertaken to the heaters. It then attempted in January 2021 to arrange for the resident to be decanted whilst work was underway for his benefit, and as its contractors had explained that they did not want him to be present. The resident declined. Contractors attended on 15 and 16 February 2021 then noted that they could not prove the heaters worked whilst the resident remained in the property. The landlord then organised for an electrical inspection to take place in order to diagnose the problem but again was unable to gain access.
  3. There was an initial delay from when the resident reported an issue on 16 October 2020, to when the landlord provided temporary heaters, and raised a follow-on appointment, which was a week after the report. Nonetheless, it acknowledged its delay in its stage one complaint response, and offered the resident £40 compensation for it. Its offer was reasonable as it was in line with its compensation policy, and the delay was not significant.
  4. At the time the resident completed the complaints procedure, his concerns about his storage heaters had not been fully resolved. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the subsequent delays in attending and carrying out work for the storage heaters were a direct result of any shortcomings on the landlord’s behalf.  It identified the works that were required to ensure the resident’s heating system was functioning correctly and sought to make arrangements for the completion of the works. Its suggestion of a decant was reasonable and pragmatic given the contractor’s concern that it could not carry out works and reliably test the heaters with the resident in situ. Although the resident declined, it carried out the appointment regardless demonstrating its wish to resolve the matter.
  5. It was also reasonable and conciliatory that the landlord sought to employ a different contractor to carry out the electrical test given the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s contractors and the reassurance that could be provided by an independent assessment of the heating system.
  6. The delay in repairing and testing the storage heating system was in part due to the resident not allowing access for appointments or making new appointments.  As explained above, the resident is required under his tenancy agreement to allow access. As such, any delays which occur as a result of the resident not granting access, cannot be deemed as a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  7. The landlord in the stage one response offered compensation for the increase in electrical costs incurred by the resident from the use of temporary heaters. The offer was based on a clear, logical calculation, £2 per day for the number of days he had used the heaters, up until that point, and as such was a reasonable offer.  The landlord did not subsequently increase the offer; however, this was not unreasonable as there was no subsequent service failure on the part of the landlord, with the resident not requesting further works after the visit of 15 and 16 February 2021, and the landlord’s contractors not being able to carry out electrical tests of the storage heating system.

Immersion heater

  1. The landlord arranged an appointment for 21 December 2020 for work to be carried out to the immersion heater. Contractors cancelled the appointment due to “offensive and abusive calls” from the resident. Contractors have the right to ensure that operatives are able to work in a reasonable and safe environment.  It is also reasonable for landlords to manage the behaviour of tenants that it considers unacceptable. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to take into account of the contractors’ version of events at that time, and to cancel the appointment.
  2. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the appointment of 21 December 2020, the landlord’s obligation to carry out works to the immersion heater remained, and it was therefore required to rearrange the works, also managing the resident’s behaviour as deemed necessary. Following arrangements for another appointment, contractors reattended in February 2021. It is understood from their report, and given that there is no evidence of the resident reporting any further issues with the immersion heater following this that they resolved the issue in February 2021.
  3. It remains unclear when or how the issue with the immersion heater arose. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to cancel the appointment in December 2020 as explained above, and the delay in arranging the appointment in February 2021 appears to be as a result of it organising how best to carry out the work to the requirement of all parties. As such, the delays whilst inconvenient, were not unreasonable, insofar as the landlord was actively attempting to resolve the situation.

Electrical meter

  1. The evidence shows that the resident’s electricity meter did not support the Economy 7 tariff which was problematic. However, the landlord did not supply the electrical meter, but the energy provider. Therefore, in accordance with its repairs policy the landlord was not obligated to repair it. As such, it was reasonable for it to advise the resident to contact his utility provider instead about resolving compatibility issue with the Economy 7 Tariff. As the correct functioning of the resident’s storage heaters were dependent on the correct meter being installed, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised that once this was completed, it could proceed with its work.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will issue its stage one and two complaint response within 15 working days.
  2. The resident raised complaints to the landlord on 30 October, 28 November, 14 and 21 December 2020. The landlord did not formally acknowledge his complaint until 6 January 2021. The evidence shows the landlord was communicating with the resident throughout this period, and attempting to resolve his concerns. However, in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website), a landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason to do so. Given that the resident made several requests to raise a complaint and the fact that the repair issues were ongoing, there was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in raising a formal complaint. The landlord’s records show it contemplated raising a complaint on 3 December 2020 but there is no good reason why it did not do so, which exacerbated the delay.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 26 January 2021. The resident responded the following day. He said he would await the landlord’s response “in the time frame set out in [its] complaint procedure”. By stating that he wanted the landlord to send a response within its complaints procedure, in line with the target time frame, the resident confirmed that he wanted to escalate his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge this, and instead asked him to confirm how he wanted to proceed with the repairs. It is understandable that the landlord focused on attempting to resolve the substantive issue, the outstanding repairs. However, it should also have escalated the complaint at this point as the resident had clearly set out why he remained dissatisfied, having received its stage one response.  This is in line with the Complaints Handling Code which states, “If the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure”.
  4. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 5 March 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord responding, as it should have. The Complaint Handling Code sets out that we expect landlords to keep residents regularly updated, even when there is no new information to provide. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord not to respond and clearly set out its position.
  5. The landlord asked the resident whether he accepted its offer of compensation, or remained dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response on 9 April 2021. The resident set out why he remained dissatisfied on 15 April 2021, and the landlord formally acknowledged his stage two complaint on 28 April 2021. It advised him on 20 May 2021 that it could not issue its stage two complaint response until it had carried out an electrical inspection. It maintained its position on 21 June 2021, despite this Service advising it to issue its response regardless of the inspection. It was not until 20 July 2021 that the landlord issued its stage two complaint response.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage two complaint in line with the timeframe set out in its complaint policy (15 working days). Although it updated the resident and explained why there would be a delay, it is the expectation of this Service that landlords should issue responses in a timely manner, regardless of whether there is outstanding work. Within a complaint response a landlord can specifically address whether there has been service failure on its part as well as confirming if there is any further action required to resolve the substantive issue, including steps the resident would be expected to take. The significant delay (three months) in issuing its stage two response was also unreasonable as it delayed the resident being able to refer his complaint to this Service for an investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s storage heaters, immersion heater, and electricity meter.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. Ultimately, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the issues with the storage heaters, immersion heater, and electrical meter. It provided temporary heating, and bigger heaters to resolve the resident’s concerns about inadequate heating, and provided compensation for the increased costs. It attempted to organise appointments to accommodate both the resident and the requests from its contractors. It also managed the resident’s expectations on what it was not responsible for, with particular reference to the electricity meter. Although there were delays, these were not directly caused by the landlord’s lack of action. Therefore, in the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s actions and responses to the multiple repair issues were reasonable.
  2. However, the landlord delayed raising the resident’s concerns as a stage one and two complaint. Also, its decision not to issue a stage two complaint response until it had carried out an inspection was unreasonable and prolonged the completion of its complaints procedure.

Order and recommendation

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £175 for the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the failings identified with the landlord’s complaint handling.

This payment should be made by 1 February 2022. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.

Recommendation

  1. Since the determination of the resident’s complaint about repair issues is in part contingent on the offer of compensation made within the landlord’s complaints procedure, it should pay the resident the £218 it offered, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord is requested to confirm its intention in respect of the above recommendation by 1 February 2022.