Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust (202213814)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213814

Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust

26 June 2023

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 concerns how the landlord handled a rechargeable repair to replace a thermostat in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident relating to physical impairment, mobility difficulties and hearing loss.
3. On 28 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that she had damaged the thermostat of the property’s heating system. The resident agreed to pay for the repair. The landlord attended the property on 28 January 2022 to put a temporary repair in place to allow the heating to be used and then installed a new thermostat on 2 February 2022. The resident received an invoice for £261.82 (£218.18 for the cost of the rechargeable repair and £43.64 VAT).
4. On 10 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She stated that when she called the landlord on 28 January 2022 to report the issue, she was informed by the staff member who took the call that it would cost £140 plus VAT to complete the repair.
5. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 March 2022, then sent a stage two complaint response on 22 March 2022. In its responses, the landlord:
   1. Stated that it could find no records of a “guesstimate” quote of £140 plus VAT. It explained that its customer access team would normally give any quote in writing. It further explained that it would be the building services team who would calculate a quote for a rechargeable repair, then provide it to the customer access team to pass on to the tenant, and that it had found no record that of any correspondence sent between the two teams prior to the repair going ahead.
   2. Explained that the work done at the property involved an initial visit to inspect the issue, the purchase of a replacement thermostat, wiring it to the boiler, and then a combustion check following the completion of the work in line with gas regulations.
   3. Apologised for any misunderstanding that had occurred during the 28 January 2022 telephone call, but that the invoice sent to the resident was correct.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord did not follow its repairs policy in completing the rechargeable repair and that comments in its stage 1 complaint response suggested that it had originally quoted a lower amount for the work, in line with the quote she was given over the telephone on 28 January 2022. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be reinvoiced for the rechargeable repair at the original quote and to receive compensation for the stress and inconvenience pursuing the matter had caused her.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 3 of the tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities. Section 3(9) states that the tenant agrees “to make good any damage to the Property or the [landlord’s] fixtures and fittings or to the common parts caused by the Tenant or any member of the Tenant’s household or any invited visitor to the Property, fair wear and tear excepted, and to pay any costs incurred by the [landlord] carrying out such works in default”.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Urgent” (attend within five working days) and “Routine” (attend within 20 working days. The landlord defines an emergency repair as “any repair that is likely to cause an immediate risk to residents, their homes or belongings” and an urgent repair as “any repair that could lead to minor damage, or has resulted in partial loss of an essential service to residents”. As an example of what the landlord considers an emergency repair, it suggests “no heating or hot water”. As an example of what it considers an urgent repair, it suggests “faulty thermostats, programmers, radiators, pumps”.
9. The landlord’s rechargeable repairs policy states that it will consider recouping the costs of a repair from a tenant when the cause of the repair is not its responsibility and is not as a result of general wear and tear. Section 2.0 of the policy states that the landlord has the discretion not to pursue the recharge in exceptional circumstances. The list of criteria given by the landlord for when this will be considered includes the resident’s age, the resident’s health, and any disability issues.
10. Section 4.0 of the rechargeable repairs policy describes how the landlord will progress a rechargeable repair. This states that it will first complete an assessment as to whether the repair should be rechargeable. It will then advise the resident “at the earliest opportunity of the recharge and preferably prior to work starting. If the resident disputes that it is a recharge and/or indicates that they will be unable to pay, the matter will be referred to the NSO team. The NSO team can then discuss with the resident the payment options or agree to waive the charge, but the repair must still be logged as a recharge regardless of the outcome of that discussion”. The policy goes on to state that “once CST/reception have received information on the cost of the work, they will advise the resident of this and confirm whether or not the work is to proceed. Whenever possible CST/reception will obtain written acceptance of the cost and the acceptance of the recharge from the resident, but this is not essential as the decision on the recharge is to address a breach of the tenancy agreement which is the signed contract between [the landlord] and the resident”.

How the landlord handled the rechargeable repair to replace the thermostat

11. Once informed by the resident of the issue with the thermostat, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord responded to the repair report appropriately. On receipt of the resident’s report, the landlord arranged an emergency repair and an operative attended within 24 hours to restore the heating to the property. An urgent repair to replace the thermostat was then raised and completed within five working days. These actions were in line with the landlord’s repairs policy detailed above.
12. It is not in dispute that the damage to the original thermostat was caused by the resident and that she would be charged for the repair. However, there is a dispute as to what information, if any, the landlord gave to the resident as to how much the repair was likely to cost when she reported the issue on 28 January 2022. The landlord has stated that it does not record its telephone calls. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with her recollection of the telephone call, and the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with internal communication from its staff. Both have been considered; however, the Ombudsman cannot reconcile the difference and say with any certainty what information was given to the resident relating to the costs of repairs during the telephone conversation. However, this investigation has assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns that were raised by the resident, with reference to the contemporaneous evidence that is available.
13. In line with the guidance given in its rechargeable repairs policy, the landlord is not obligated to provide a quote prior to the repair going ahead, but that it will wherever possible look to provide a quote and receive the resident’s approval before going ahead with the work. The landlord explained that it would not have been in a position to provide a quote until the thermostat had been inspected, and that this did not occur until after the telephone call was completed. It also stated that it had not found any records or notes of the call, or any internal emails sent between the team that would have calculated the quote and the team that would have passed this information on to the resident.
14. However, while the landlord has provided evidence that its building services team investigated whether it had calculated a quote for the work prior to it going ahead and confirmed it had not, it would also be expected to provide evidence as to how its customer access team handled the 28 January 2022 telephone call and what information it gave to the resident. However, the Ombudsman must also accept that the landlord was not obliged to give a quote and in line with its procedures, no written notice was provided to the resident confirming a quote. As such the Ombudsman cannot find that there was a failing in this regard.
15. Whilst the landlord could have contacted the manager of the staff member who took the telephone call with the resident to determine what information had been given to the resident and then informed the resident of its findings in its complaint response, the fact this did not happen was a minor failing. This is as it is acknowledged that the landlord correctly followed its repair policy in completing the repairs to the thermostat, and that it correctly billed the resident for the work that was completed between 28 January 2022 and 2 February 2022. While the landlord stated in its complaint responses what information its customer access team would be expected to provide in this situation, as noted an actual quote could not have been provided without prior inspection of the thermostat, which took place after the telephone call.
16. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot find failings here, it is clear that the landlord could have kept better records as it has been unable to locate any system notes relating to the 28 January 2022 telephone call other than the information about the repair that was added to the emergency work order raised on the same day. The Ombudsman therefore deems that there was minor service failure in regards to the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
17. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of minor service failure by a landlord. Therefore, a payment of £50 that recognised the landlord’s failure to properly investigate how its customer access team handled the 28 January 2022 telephone call to determine what information was or was not given to the resident at this time would be appropriate in the circumstances. It is also ordered that the landlord review its record-keeping policies and procedures as they relate to telephone calls to ensure it keeps a proper log and audit trial of its residents’ calls. It is further advised that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which was published in May 2023 and is available on our website.
18. When bringing the case to this Service, the resident highlighted a section of the stage one complaint response and stated that this supported her position that she was given a lower quote during the 28 January 2022 telephone call. This stated as follows:
    1. “We would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention as we have identified shortfalls in our customer pricing, as an example the cost we charge for our thermostats does not adequately cover the cost for us to buy them in and fit. Which has encouraged us to scrutinise all our standard parts and labour costs attributed to the fitting.”
19. This section of the complaint response relates to the information the landlord’s building services team had available to it in order to calculate the costs of repairs and how the landlord used the resident’s complaint to improve its customer pricing in order to provide more accurate quotes. This information would not have been available to the customer access team who took the resident’s call. While the pricing the landlord held for thermostats may have been set too low during the telephone call made by the resident on 28 January 2022, it has already been established that the building services team did not provide a quote to the customer access team and would not have done so until an operative had visited the property to inspect the issue.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the rechargeable repair to replace the thermostat.

Orders

21. For the service failure the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £50. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
22. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.
23. The landlord should review its record-keeping policies and procedures as they relate to telephone calls to ensure it keeps a proper log and audit trial of its residents’ calls.
24. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which was published in May 2023 and is available on our website.