Hyde Housing Association Limited (202219866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219866

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 January 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 the landlord’s:
1. response to concerns about the presence of carbon monoxide;
2. response to concerns about a lack of heating and hot water;
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a first-floor flat. She has mental and physical health conditions that the landlord is aware of.
On 29 September 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she was concerned about the presence of carbon monoxide coming from her boiler. Southern Gas Networks (SGN) attended the property the same day and placed a sealing disc on the meter outlet. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 30 September 2022 and tested the boiler. They recorded carbon monoxide levels at 696 parts per million as part of their gas flue analysis and disconnected the boiler from the gas supply. They also found that an internal leak was present inside the boiler due to a broken condense pipe. The next day the contractor provided the landlord with a copy of their report and advised it to repair the boiler.
On 30 September 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said that the landlord had failed to call her back following the contractor’s visit nor had it offered to provide her with electric heaters or alternative accommodation. In addition, she explained that she was a vulnerable person and had been left with no heating or hot water. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to install a new boiler. In October 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord’s heating contractor carried out a gas safety check and fitted new parts to the boiler. However, it noted that a new thermostat needed fitting and arranged a follow up appointment for 21 October 2022.
On 21 October 2022 the resident informed the landlord’s contractor that she had forgotten about the appointment and that she would rebook. At the end of October 2022, the resident informed the contractor that she had been unwell and asked them to arrange another appointment. In response, the contractor advised that they could fit the new thermostat any day the following week but were happy to wait until she was feeling better. The contractor attended the property on 11 November 2022 and again on 1 December 20022 but was unable to gain access. On 11 December 2022, the resident reported to the contractor that her boiler had broken down.
On 12 December 2022, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to her complaint by 19 December 2022. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 13 January 2023. In summary, it said:
1. That a link was installed on the boiler on 23 December 2022 and the resident was left with heating.
2. A new thermostat was fitted and tested on 6 January 2023 and there was no evidence of any leak from the boiler.
3. That following the resident’s report of carbon monoxide in the property, its gas contractor attended the same day and disconnected the gas supply, and this would not continue to produce carbon monoxide.
4. It carried out a gas service check on 6 October 2022 where it fitted a new condense pipe.
5. It apologised for sending a message in error asking for her to contact its contractor for a boiler installation.
6. It acknowledged that it should have completed the repairs to her boiler sooner and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
7. It offered a total of £350 compensation for poor communication, delays in completing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused.
In the resident’s escalation request, she said that her needs were not met when the engineer disconnected the boiler. She added that an appointment was arranged without any communication and that nobody explained to her the possible effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. She said that she rang the landlord numerous times on 30 September 2022 asking to be re-housed as she had no heating or hot water, but it had not responded to her complaints. In addition, she was upset that the landlord had not provided her with temporary heaters or food vouchers and stated that she had to purchase her own heaters and that her electricity bills had gone up as a result. Overall, she felt that the landlord had not considered her health needs and had put her life at risk. As a resolution, she wanted no less than £8,000 compensation.
The landlord issued its final response on 27 January 2023. In summary, it said that on 3 October 2022 multiple tests were carried out to detect if carbon monoxide was present in the property. A new carbon monoxide detector was also installed. In addition, the gas was turned back on, and the cooker was left in working order. Further, it stated that it had attempted to attend the property on several occasions to repair her boiler, but she was unavailable. Overall, it felt that its offer of compensation was fair and that it had her boiler and cooker back up and running safely within its published service level agreements. In addition, it asked the resident to contact its heating contractor to arrange an appointment regarding her recent report of a leaking boiler.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that her boiler was still not working. As a resolution, she wanted an apology from the landlord as well as compensation for the stress caused. In addition, she wanted a replacement boiler and reimbursement for her increased electricity costs. On 20 July 2023, the landlord replaced the boiler.

Assessment and findings

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.
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’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The presence of carbon monoxide

The resident reported a carbon monoxide leak to the landlord on 29 September 2022. SGN attended the same day and acted to address the immediate health and safety risks by disconnecting the gas supply. In addition, the landlord asked its gas contractor to attend to the property and report back on its findings. They attended the next day and disconnected the boiler from the gas supply. They also carried out a safety check where they found carbon monoxide within the boiler and supplied a report to the landlord which confirmed that follow-up repairs were needed. After conducting further tests, the gas was turned back on and the cooker was left in service, and a new carbon monoxide alarm was provided. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by promptly alerting the gas contractor to the report of a carbon monoxide leak.
In the resident’s escalation request, she said that she was unhappy that the landlord had arranged an appointment for the morning of 30 September 2022 without her knowledge. Although it was understandable that the landlord wanted to investigate and address this matter as soon as possible, it should have informed the resident when she could expect a visit from its contractor. This was an oversight on the part of the landlord and a recommendation is made below in respect of this.
The resident also stated that the landlord was unaware of how bad the fumes from the carbon monoxide were when the boiler was disconnected. In response, the landlord stated that having disconnected the boiler there would no longer be any possibility of a carbon monoxide leak. In addition, it stated that tests were carried out to detect if there were harmful levels of carbon monoxide in her home. It subsequently installed a new carbon monoxide detector. Given the resident’s understandable anxiety over this situation, this was a reasonable response from the landlord and provided an accurate overview of the steps it had taken to resolve her concerns. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to concerns about the presence of carbon monoxide.

Lack of heating and hot water

Once the gas supply was disconnected, the landlord was responsible for completing the required remedial works to the boiler. The landlord’s website states that a report of no heating or hot water between 1 October to 31 March should be dealt with as an emergency. The landlord’s repairs timescale states that it should attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make the issue safe within 24 hours. It states that a further appointment will be made to carry out a permanent repair. In addition, its website outlines that it may have to provide temporary heaters while it fixes the problem.
The boiler was made safe within the landlord’s repair timescales. Its records indicate that a follow-up appointment was made for 1 October 2022 to repair the boiler. Its records show that the resident asked for this appointment to be rearranged for 6 October 2022. The landlord’s heating contractor attended on this date and fitted a new condense pipe to the boiler and completed a gas safety check. However, its records note that a new thermostat was needed, and it implied that she would be without heating until this thermostat was installed. While the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out the repairs to the boiler with a reasonable timescale, it is unclear why it failed to offer temporary heaters to the resident despite opportunities for it to do so. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord’s records indicate that a follow-up appointment to fit the thermostat was made for 21 October 2022, over 2 weeks later. While the resident had to postpone this appointment, the landlord missed another opportunity to provide temporary heaters to the resident. In addition, there was evidence that the resident raised the lack of heating issue directly with the landlord, yet it failed to respond to her concerns. This led to her complaining to the landlord’s heating contractor at the end of October 2022 where she stated that ‘nobody had got back to her’ and that ‘no heaters were offered’. Further, she reiterated that she was vulnerable.
In response, the landlord’s contractor stated that it was in discussion with the landlord about this issue. However, there is no evidence to support this statement. Indeed, there appeared to be a lack of meaningful contact between the landlord and its contractor regarding the resident’s concerns throughout. This demonstrated a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractor. A recommendation is made below in respect of this.
Nevertheless, the contractor informed the resident that it had appointments available to fit the new thermostat the following week. Its records indicated that due to the resident being unwell, a new appointment was booked for 17 November 2022. However, when they attended on this date, the resident was not home. They subsequently phoned her, and she advised that she would rebook the appointment herself. Another appointment was made for 1 December 2022, however, the contractor was again unable to gain access to the property. On 23 December 2022, following further reports of boiler issues, the landlord accessed the property and applied a link to the boiler as a temporary fix to provide heating. A new thermostat was subsequently installed on 6 January 2023.
Overall, the landlord missed opportunities to provide temporary heaters to the resident and there was no evidence that this option was discussed with her during the period of the complaint. Moreover, its records showed that it was aware that a new thermostat was needed. It is therefore unclear why the landlord’s contractor did not apply a link to the boiler or a new thermostat during its initial visit to the property on 6 October 2022. These failures were avoidable, and its inactions left the resident without adequate heating in her property for almost 3 months. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was likely made worse by the time of year and her vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the landlord failed to respond to her request to be re-housed, despite its records showing that it had briefly discussed this internally with colleagues.
However, the evidence also shows that the landlord’s heating contractor did make reasonable efforts to arrange appointments to access the property to fix the boiler, yet often appointments needed to be rearranged by the resident. In view of this and taking into account the failures identified, it is considered that the £350 compensation offered by the landlord was adequate in ‘putting things right’ for the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to a lack of heating and hot water.
Nonetheless, there was evidence after the landlord’s final response that showed that further repairs were required to the boiler, with it eventually being replaced in July 2023. The landlord should therefore review its handling of repairs to the boiler since January 2023 and assess whether further compensation is appropriate if continued failings are identified. In particular, it should investigate if the resident was left without adequate heating or hot water during this period.
In addition, the resident informed the landlord that she had to pay for electric blankets and heaters while she was without heating. She added that her electric bills had increased as a result. The landlord should therefore consider reimbursing any direct financial losses, such as out-of-pocket expenses, which have been incurred by the resident due to its service failures. From the evidence submitted, it is not clear if this has been addressed by the landlord, and so a recommendation has been made for it to do so.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will formally acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days following this acknowledgment.
The resident first raised a complaint with the landlord on 30 September 2022. This was acknowledged by the landlord the same day, yet it failed to respond to her at all. She raised a further complaint 6 days later and subsequently chased it for a response on 11 October 2022 when she informed the landlord that the situation was affecting her mental wellbeing. The landlord failed to respond to these complaints. This would have caused distress to the resident and would have left her feeling that her concerns were being ignored.
This led to the resident raising a complaint directly with the landlord’s heating contractor at the end of October 2022. While the contractor responded to the resident promptly, it is unclear if the details of this complaint were shared with the landlord. In any case, the landlord was responsible for responding to the complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its failure to do so caused time and trouble for the resident who ultimately felt it necessary to contact its contractor to get her issues resolved.
On 12 December 2022, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the complaint within 5 working days. In response, the landlord said that this was the first time it had received reports of ‘all the issues’ in the complaint and advised the resident that it would formally respond by no later than 3 January 2023. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 13 January 2023. While the landlord informed the resident that it would need more time to respond, this represented a further delay in getting matters resolved. This would have caused frustration to the resident.
The landlord has recently informed this Service that the system it previously used to log complaints via its website suffered intermittent outages during 2022. The landlord acknowledged that it was likely that the resident’s complaints did not enter its system at that time. It has informed this Service that it implemented a new complaints system in April 2023 and stated that it would actively check for any previous contact where a resident had referred to raising a complaint via its website.
However, it is more than likely that some residents who raised complaints during this period may not have had their concerns addressed. This can be evidenced by a recently determined case by this Service (202228794). In this case, the evidence indicated that although the landlord received the complaint form via its website, it failed to reach the team responsible for registering and administering the complaint.
Paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) allows for the Ombudsman to make wider orders with effect from 1 October 2023. We will make such orders where our investigation establishes that more than one resident may be affected by a matter and/or that matter may affect other properties and/or a related policy or practice may give rise to further complaints. Given this, the Ombudsman has made a wider order in respect of this issue – the details of this are set out below.
Overall, it took the landlord over 3 months to respond to the resident’s complaint and it failed to act in accordance with its policy. Furthermore, the landlord stated that it only became aware of the resident’s initial web submissions following its stage 1 response where she supplied it with copies of those submissions. However, it made no reference to this in its final response, nor did it apologise or offer redress for its complaint handling failures.
Moreover, its responses failed to acknowledge the resident’s vulnerabilities, despite her raising this as a significant issue in both her complaint and her escalation request. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. The Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests compensation of over £100 should be considered where there have been failures by a landlord that have adversely affected the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns about the presence of carbon monoxide.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to concerns about a lack of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident further compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to its system for managing and responding to complaints. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. Creation of an action plan that will allow it to:
  1. understand how many residents may have been affected by its complaint system outages for the period January 2022 to April 2023;
  2. establish how it will make contact with these residents.
3. A review of how effectively its new system will prevent a recurrence of this fault.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
3. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to those residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident experienced due to the complaints system outages.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 12 weeks to evidence that it has complied with the above wider order.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £350 compensation offered in its final response, if it has not done so already.
2. Contact the resident so that it can consider, and respond to, her reported extra costs due to increased electricity bills.
3. Review its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler since January 2023 and assess whether further compensation is appropriate if it is found that there were continued failings.
It is recommended that the landlord considers measures to ensure that:
1. Repair appointments are pre-arranged with residents.
2. Contractors know when to share important information with it, particularly when there are concerns regarding health and safety and residents’ vulnerabilities.