Great Places Housing Group Limited (202501807)

Background

1. The resident’s lease began during March 2021 when the property was newly built. The property was covered by Buildmark insurance for the period 2021 to 2033. During February 2025 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his flue had failed its annual gas service. The boiler was shut off for safety meaning he was without heating and hot water. He was unable to carry out the repair under his boiler cover and therefore, had to pay the cost himself.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for works carried out to the boiler flue.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for works carried out to the boiler flue.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

Boiler

4. The resident’s lease says he is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition. Schedule 1 says the premises includes service installations within and exclusively serving the premises.
5. The resident arranged for his boiler and flue to be serviced in line with the terms of his lease. Following its service on 10 February 2025 he contacted the landlord to report that a leak was coming from the flue. The engineer had turned off the boiler. The design of the flue meant the repair could not be completed under his own boiler cover. This was because it only applied to issues occurring in the flue within one metre of the boiler. The longer length of the flue meant the issue was not covered. He said he’d paid for the repair and asked the landlord to reimburse the cost which was due to the design of the flue.
6. On 17 March 2025 he advised the landlord that he’d tried to claim on his Buildmark insurance. He said this would not help him because the cost of the repair was lower than the £1,500 excess on the policy. On 21 April 2025 the resident also advised the landlord that he’d had to purchase corrosion inhibitor, costing £49.99, as the levels were found to be low. He said he’d previously been advised this had been added during the original installation and had a 10 year life span.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses said there was not enough evidence to suggest the issue with the flue was due to a defect with the original installation. It correctly advised the resident was responsible for servicing and repairing the boiler. Therefore, it was reasonable that it was a matter for him to resolve, whether carried out under his boiler cover or paid for directly by him. It was also reasonable that the landlord would not ensure that the entire length of the flue could be included in any boiler cover the resident may purchase.
8. The landlord was not responsible for the repair costs under the lease. However, it recognised the inconvenience experienced by the resident and offered £250 as a goodwill gesture. This was proportionate redress for the additional issues identified by the resident including the addition of the anticorrosion fluid. As such an offer of reasonable redress was made in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

9. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 25 February 2025 within the timescales set out in its policy. It emailed the resident to request an extension on the day its response was due it. The request was in line with the Code and its policy which says it will provide an explanation for any extension and confirm the new date. However, it failed to proactively manage the resident’s expectations by advising him in advance of the due date. The response provided in line with the new deadline.
11. The Code requires landlords’ complaint acknowledgements to confirm the complaint definition. The landlord did not do so in this case which meant its responses did not reflect the true nature of the resident’s complaint. There’s no evidence that it contacted him to discuss his complaint, as set out in its stage 2 acknowledgement. Had it contacted him it might’ve gained a better understanding of the complaint and provided a more appropriate response. However, we acknowledge that in this case it would’ve been unlikely to provide a different outcome.
12. The Code requires landlords to fully address all the complaint points. The resident’s stage 1 complaint said he’d tried to contact the landlord prior to 12 February 2025 but had not received a response. Its complaint responses did not address this part of the complaint. This was inappropriate because it missed an opportunity to reflect on its response and identify any areas of learning.
13. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £50 should be paid where there was a failure of short duration which may not affect the overall outcome for the resident. This is reflected in our orders below.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.