Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202310579)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310579

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

21 October 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and her request for compensation for gas usage.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord at the property since 23 January 2023. The property is a two-bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her young child and is vulnerable due to mobility issues. The landlord’s records reflect this.
  2. On 8 February 2023, the resident reported that the radiators in the property were not heating to full capacity. An engineer attended the same day. He completed a temporary fix and left the heating and hot water working. He ordered parts to rectify the problem fully.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 9 February 2023. She said that she could not “have her heating on 24/7”. The landlord told her that the parts were on order and it would arrange an appointment to fit them as soon as they arrived. An engineer fitted the parts on 28 February 2023.
  4. The resident complained on 13 April 2023. She said that on 8 February 2023 an engineer had told her that she should leave her heating on until parts were fitted. This meant that it was on continuously from 8 – 28 February 2023. She said that her gas bill was “astronomical” and with charges of £120 just for that period. She said she would therefore like compensation to cover this.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 13 April 2023 and responded on 24 April 2023. It apologised that her heating bill was so high due to having her heating on for such a lengthy period and said that it appreciated that this had caused her inconvenience. It offered her £120 to cover the cost of the bill.
  6. On 24 April 2023, the resident reported that a radiator was not warming up and that the radiator in the bathroom was leaking. An engineer attended on 2 May 2023. He noted that he tightened a nut, bled the radiator, and that the radiators were heating up as they should.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 4 May 2023. She said that she had now received a gas bill for £572.73 which she said was because of leaking radiators in both bedrooms. She said that an engineer attended on 2 May 2023 and found a leaking radiator in the bedroom and bathroom but that he had not checked the other bedroom radiator which she thought was also faulty. She said she could provide a copy of the bill if required.
  8. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 complaint on 10 May 2023 and provided a response on 9 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in addressing the issues with the boiler and how the experience would have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. It said that she had reported a faulty boiler on 30 April 2023 which was fixed on 30 May 2023. It apologised that there was a lack of communication between departments during the process.
  9. The landlord also said that it was unclear why she would have been told to keep the heating on between 8 and 28 February 2023 as it “is not normally something we would advise”. It said that a bill for £572.54 would usually accumulate over a 3-month period and “there is no evidence to suggest this amount had actually been charged”. It offered a further £130 compensation for the delay in repairing the boiler.
  10. The landlord called the resident on 12 June 2023. It arranged a post inspection of the repair and asked the resident for copies of her high gas bill and any preceding bills. The resident sent a copy of her gas bill from 15 February 2023 – 24 April 2023. This showed an opening outstanding balance of £208.39 with a further charge of £364.15 between these dates giving a total of £572.54. The landlord asked her again for other gas bills for comparison reasons. The resident did not provide these and the landlord offered no further compensation at this time.
  11. This Service requested copies of gas bills from the landlord as part of this investigation. On 5 July 2024, it told us that in the absence of the bills it would offer the resident a further £250 in compensation to resolve the issue, which she accepted.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and compensation for gas usage.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy said that it allocated each repair a priority band, which determined the required response time. These were “Urgent Emergency Response – within 4 hours. Emergency Response – within 24 hours – Routine – within 20 working days”. It also said that “the priority allocated to the work order for a repair will be determined by the type of issue being reported and the likelihood to cause harm to the resident or the property.”
  2. An engineer attended the property on the same day that the resident reported that the radiators were not heating to full capacity. This was an appropriate response time and the engineer left the heating and hot water functioning. An engineer returned to fit the parts within 20 working days. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its policy with regards to the timescale for the repair of the boiler.
  3. The landlord offered £130 for the delay in repairing the boiler at stage 2 of the complaints process. It is unclear why it did this when it adhered to its policy and completed the repair to the boiler within appropriate timescales.
  4. However, the resident said that the engineer told her that she should leave the heating on continuously until the parts were fitted. There is evidence to confirm that the landlord knew this because it noted that the resident mentioned that she could not leave her heating on 24 hours a day when she called it on 9 February 2023.
  5. The landlord advised this Service that it does not have a policy on the repayment of utility bills due to heating related issues. However, it said that it has guidance for staff which states that if a resident tells it that they have had increased utility bills for this reason, it will ask them to provide bills for comparable periods as evidence of increased consumption.
  6. The resident initially advised the landlord that leaving the heating on for 20 days had cost her £120. The landlord did not ask for a copy of the bill or a comparable one, however, it acted reasonably by paying £120 to the resident to compensate for this.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process because she had had a further issue with leaking radiators and felt that this had caused a further increase in fuel costs. She offered to provide a copy of the fuel bill at that time, if required, but this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord asked her for this. As the resident had only moved into the property a few months previously she would not have had another bill to provide for comparison purposes.
  8. The landlord was reasonable when it said that it would not compensate the resident for the whole bill because the resident would have incurred some heating costs if the boiler was working correctly. However, at stage 2 of the complaints process, it refused to consider any further compensation for fuel costs. It said that it did not know why the engineer would have told her to leave the heating on, when there was evidence on the repairs records that this was the case. It also disputed that the bill was so high, without asking for a copy.
  9. In accordance with its guidance, it should have requested a copy of the fuel bill she had and used its judgement to decide whether further compensation was due. Doing this would have demonstrated that it was taking a fair approach to its decision making, using the information available to it. Its failure to do so caused the resident distress and cost her time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
  10. Following contact from this Service, the landlord revised its offer of compensation and increased this by £250 to include the increase in fuel costs. We accept that this compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
  11. The landlord completed repairs to the boiler within a reasonable timeframe and offered reasonable redress at the time of the stage 1 complaint. However, its failure to investigate the increase in fuel costs at the time of the stage 2 complaint cost the resident time, trouble and inconvenience. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has subsequently increased its offer of compensation, this was some time after the complaints procedure and did not fully reflect the cumulative failings in this case. This was a service failure. Therefore, an order to pay a further £50 to reflect this has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said that complaint handlers must “consider all information and evidence carefully.”
  2. The first part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not relate to the resident’s complaint. It mentioned that she initially reported a faulty boiler on 13 April 2023 which it repaired on 30 May 2023. However, the repairs log supplied by the landlord for the property does not include a repair that corresponds with these dates. It is therefore likely that this does not relate to her property, or there were errors in the data entry regarding the dates. However, it would have caused confusion for the resident and given her the impression that her complaint had not been fully investigated.
  3. The stage 2 response also mentioned that there was a lack of communication between departments and that the resident had contacted it on numerous occasions. This Service has also seen no evidence to support this. This may be because of poor record keeping or that the response was incorrect. These errors would have caused the resident to doubt that the landlord had taken the complaint seriously and this would undermine the complaints process. This failure to follow the Code cost her time and trouble because she had to contact this Service for an investigation.
  4. The landlord also did not address the concerns that the resident made in her stage 2 escalation request, about leaking radiators. She said that 1 bedroom radiator had not been inspected and that she thought that this and other leaking radiators had caused a further increase in fuel costs. The landlord’s failure to address these issues at the time cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to contact it again. However, we understand that the landlord later carried out a post inspection of the repair.
  5. Due to the landlord’s failure to follow the Code when investigating the stage 2 complaint, meaning that the response was not comprehensive and did not seem to reflect the facts, there has been service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. A payment of £100 compensation has been ordered to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident due to this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the boiler and compensation for gas usage.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident directly a total of £150 in compensation:
      1.  £50 to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the service failure in its handling of the compensation for gas usage.
      2. £100 to reflect the distress, time and trouble caused due to the service failures in its complaint handling.
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures in this case.
  2. Review its guidance to staff regarding payment of utility bills due to heating related issues. This to include how it should handle cases where the resident has recently moved into the property. This to be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider formalising its guidance regarding payment of utility bills into a policy.