Kingston upon Hull City Council (202118928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118928

Kingston upon Hull City Council

9 September 2022

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive noise from the boiler.

Background

2. The resident, who is a secure tenant of the landlord, advised that since a contractor attended on 26 September 2020 to service the boiler, there had been excessive noise coming from the boiler and heating system, that had kept her awake at night. She also advised that as a result of the noise, she did not turn the hot water on, and had been using a kettle and a bowl to bathe. The resident submitted her formal complaint to the landlord on 9 April 2021, in which she raised concerns regarding the service she had received, and the landlord’s response to these reports. The landlord gave its formal response on 23 April 2021, in which it advised that it had given permission for the resident to appoint an independent surveyor to assess the system. However, the resident provided no proof that she had done this.
3. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two but this was denied by the landlord on 23 June 2021 as it felt that it had adequately addressed her concerns in its stage one response. Additionally, it advised that several agents and contractors had attended the property, and nobody, including members of the resident’s family, had witnessed the noises.
4. On 7 October 2021, the resident raised another formal complaint, in which she advised that she remained unhappy with how her reports of the noise had been handled, and that she had found that the stop cock in the property had been turned off. The landlord’s final response was issued on 31 January 2022, following a request from this service to escalate the complaint on 23 November 2021. It explained that several people and experts had visited the property to address the concerns that had been raised and none were able to witness the reported noises. It also provided copies of the previous three gas safety inspections which confirmed that the system was in good working condition, and that no problems had been found. The resident remained unhappy that the noise persisted. The resident also maintained that she could not have the hot water and heating system turned on due to the noise, and therefore continued to bathe with a kettle and bowl and had also purchased free standing heaters in order to heat the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

5. The landlord’s Customer Feedback Process states that for a stage two response, it will ‘aim to send a full response thin 20 working days. If [the landlord needs] more time [it will write to the resident] saying when [it expects it] can answer in full’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about excessive noise from the boiler

6. The resident’s complaints were consistent throughout the duration of the issue, in that she believed that there remained excessive noise that originated from the boiler, heating system and pipes within the property and the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously. In her formal complaint (9 April 2021), the resident stated that she had been reporting an issue with the boiler for seven months.
7. However, the landlord demonstrated that it had made several attempts to identify the issue and resolve it for the resident. The landlord would be expected to inspect the boiler, and to also have an expert survey the property in order to identify any potential issues. On 17 March 2021, an agent attended the property, and also met with the resident’s son-in-law.
8. Additionally, on 12 May 2021, the property was attended as part of the annual gas safety check. An email from the landlord on 19 May 2021 confirmed that the record of the visit showed that all appliances were working properly, and that no issues were highlighted. This is also supported by copies of the record that have been provided to this Service. As well as this, the landlord also provided gas safety records from 2020 and 2021, which both supported that the boiler and heating system had been in good working order during this time. Another visit was also made on 16 August 2021 in order to check for any problems. The contractors noted a ‘humming’ noise; however, it was determined that this was the standard operating noise of the boiler.
9. In sending multiple contractors and agents for visits to the property, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, and that the resident’s concerns were its priority, and at the forefront of determining what action to take. Although the resident maintained that the system was generating excessive noise, and that it was causing the property to shake, ultimately, the landlord relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the boiler and heating system were in good condition, and that it was not generating excessive noise. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the conclusion that the system was not in need of repair was reasonable in the circumstances.
10. It should be noted however, that the landlord has not provided any contractor notes from visits to the property, other than the gas safety records. Whilst the dates of the visits has not been disputed by the resident, the reports would give an insight into what efforts were undertaken during the visits to determine whether there was excessive noise. For future reference, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide any contractor notes to allow a more in depth investigation into such cases.
11. As well as multiple visits from contractors, the landlord gave its permission for the resident to seek the services of an independent surveyor of her choice, in order to assess and inspect the boiler and heating system. This is something that the resident had asked for as part of her formal complaint. In its formal response, the landlord also showed that it had been proactive in pursuing this option as its gas maintenance officer had sent the resident an email on 12 April 2021, which granted permission for her to do so. The officer also provided an email for the resident to send the outcome of the second opinion to.
12. In an email to the landlord on 17 May 2021, it was noted by the resident’s designated person that she had contacted a boiler engineer who said that the issue of the shaking pipes was due to the fact that they had not been flushed following a boiler replacement ten years prior. However, the resident provided no information regarding the contractor and its visit, and also provided no evidence of the visit. Without an inspection report, or evidence of the inspection itself, it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain its reliance on the expertise of its own contractors and professionals.
13. Additionally, the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion in giving permission for the resident to seek an independent surveyor. In doing so, the landlord showed that it cared about the resident’s concerns, and that it wanted to resolve the complaint to such an extent that the resident would deem adequate. By going above and beyond its expectations, the landlord presented an opportunity for the resident to seek further advice, and an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.
14. Another way in which the landlord demonstrated its care for the resident’s concerns, was how it accepted a second formal complaint procedure to be opened for the resident’s complaint. Following the resident’s first formal complaint, the landlord gave a stage one response but declined to escalate the complaint to stage two as it believed that it had adequately addressed the resident’s concerns. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline this escalation as it was clear that it had addressed each concern that the resident had raised in her formal complaint. Additionally, there were no further developments or additional issues raised by the resident that would have necessitated a review of the complaint.
15. However, following the resident’s second formal complaint on 7 October 2021, the landlord agreed to open the complaint procedure again, and gave both a stage one and final response. Here the landlord showed its willingness to work with the resident, and to attempt to come to a solution again. As the complaint was much the same as the first instance of it being raised, and when considering that the landlord had already concluded its investigation based upon the findings of professionals, the landlord went above and beyond by accepting the complaint again as something that it would investigate. Additionally, this conveyed that the complaint was being taken seriously, and that the landlord wanted to ensure that the resident was aware it had done everything it could in order to investigate and resolve her complaint.
16. In its final response (31 January 2022) the landlord advised that neither its operatives or the resident’s son-in-law witnessed any excessive noise, and only the standard operating noises made by the boiler, could be heard. The landlord also provided copies of the gas insoection records to the resident in its final response.
17. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of excessive noise from the boiler and heating system was in line with what would be expected of a landlord in this scenario. It fully addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint, and conducted multiple visits to the property. It also based its conclusions on the expertise of professionals in the field. This was reasonable; however, the landlord also went above and beyond what would be expected of it, in order to attempt to ensure that the resident felt that her voice was being heard, and that it was doing the utmost to resolve her complaint. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about excessive noise from the boiler and heating system.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord provides all contractor notes from visits to properties to help aid in future investigations.