Kingston upon Hull City Council (202124741)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124741

Kingston upon Hull City Council

29 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler and heating system.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlords. She has a health condition which makes her particularly susceptible to cold temperatures, which the landlord is aware of.
3. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported on 24 July 2021 that she had no hot water. Another repair order was raised on 29 September 2021, as the radiators were not working. Two further repairs were raised, one on 14 October 2021 and another on the 16 October 2021, stating that the resident was without heating and hot water due to the boiler. Most reports were attended and resolved within one to two days, but one took seven days due to the need for parts.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 16 October 2021. She explained that her boiler “constantly” broke down and she wanted a replacement. She said she had reported issues concerning the boiler for a number of years, and wanted a more permanent solution to the problem. The landlord sent its complaint response on 1 November 2021. It explained the works it had completed on the recent visits to the property, and that each visit had involved a separate issue with either the boiler or the radiators. The landlord concluded that each issue was separate, and that the contractors had attended “within the timescales”. It also stated that the boiler had been fitted in 2012, and so would not be eligible for replacement for at least seven more years.
5. The resident did not receive her stage one response letter and called the landlord to report that her boiler was not functioning again, leaving her without heating or hot water. The landlord’s internal memos from this date record that the radiators were fitted in 1997 and query whether the boiler was fitted in 2012 as originally thought. The memo records a contractor stating that the boiler was serviced and flushed through in 2012. The resident’s complaint was escalated, as she remained unhappy that her boiler was still breaking down on a regular basis.
6. In between the stage two escalation and response, contractors responded to further boiler issues from 23 November 2021. The repair logs show that another report of the faulty boiler was raised on 26 November 2021, with the resident being required to use her own alternative heating until 30 November 2021. The resident stated that the alternative heating (a blow heater) was more expensive to run, and only heated the property to about 13 degrees. An internal record for the landlord dated 29 November 2021 records that because of her health condition the resident had been particularly affected by the cold (the repair logs show that the landlord was previously aware of her vulnerabilities in that regard).
7. The landlord’s stage two response on 6 December 2021explained that following the resident’s complaint, its contractors investigated the boiler, finding a mechanical fault with its plastic valves. This issue was repaired on 30 November 2021. The resident’s complaint was not upheld, as the landlord stated that the boiler had been repaired within the relevant timescale, and that the contractors had again identified different, unconnected repairs each time, which it deemed now to be solved.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and asked to escalate her complaint to the landlord’s discretionary third stage on 21 December 2021. She repeated that her complaint revolved around the ongoing problems with the boiler, rather than on whether the repairs had been completed on time. She stated that she would like a surveyor to visit the property to advise if a new boiler was necessary.
9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 February 2022, as she had not had a response about her third stage complaint. She also stated that she was continuing to experience further problems of intermittent heating or lack of hot water. The landlord responded to the reports of the repairs by sending out its contractor. On 10 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident, explaining that her escalation to the third stage had not been passed on to the relevant department. It stated that this would now be rectified by that department. The resident declined to continue with the landlord’s third stage and brought her complaint to this Service.
10. In her complaint to this Service the resident explained she remained dissatisfied with the ongoing issues with her boiler. She wanted the landlord to investigate if the boiler system needs replacing.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance and to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the house, such as for space and water heating. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults with her boiler and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
12. The landlord has directed this Service to repairs information on its website, as it does not have a specific repairs policy. The provided information does not include repair timescales, and so those in this report will be based on usual industry standards amongst social landlords, and what is considered reasonable. Generally, once on notice for routine repairs, a landlord would be expected to attend a property and carry out necessary repair works within 28 days. In this case, the repairs related to heating and hot water, which would usually constitute an urgent repair with a one-day timeframe in the winter months, and three days for the rest of the year (using the Right to Repair Scheme timeframes as a general guide, which considers winter to be from 31 October to 1 May).
13. The repair logs show that the landlord responded to each report of repairs for the boiler and radiator. After each report, the boiler was left working. However, the logs also show that there were a number of times where the resident was left with a faulty boiler and issues with her heat or water for a number of days. According to the logs, the most notable occasions were 16 October 2021 to 23 October 2021, 26 November 2021 to 30 November 2021 and most significantly 17 January 2022 to 9 February 2022. All but the first of these instances were during what would be considered the winter months, and so should have been attended to and resolved within one day. Exceeding the stated timeframe for repairs would not automatically be classed as service failure, however, a landlord should take steps to mitigate the situation for the resident; The landlord should communicate effectively with the resident and manage their expectations, offering clear timescales for the repairs where possible. Interim solutions should be considered (such as temporary heaters), along with consideration of reimbursement of running costs if this incurs extra expense. The resident explained at least once to the landlord that she was using temporary heating, which was not sufficiently warming the property. She also stated that this was costing her more than normal. The landlord did not offer clear timescales as to when the issue of the repeatedly breaking boiler would be resolved, nor did it provide additional heating once informed that the property remained cold, or consider compensation for the additional expense incurred by the resident from the use of temporary heating. This was not an appropriate response from the landlord and in the circumstances would amount to service failure.
14. Although this investigation centres on the issues in the months leading up to the resident’s formal complaints, the repair log provided by the landlord shows intermittent reports of problems with the boiler, resulting in loss of heating and hot water, beginning in August 2017, and ongoing from then.
15. In response to the resident’s first complaint the landlord acknowledged her concern about the repeated breakdowns, and her wish for it to be replaced. However, it did not address the issue of the continuous problems, saying only that each repair had been addressed within appropriate timeframes, and that the boiler was not old enough to be replaced. The landlord did the same thing with its second complaint response — acknowledging the resident’s frustration with the ongoing issues and repeat visits but focussing instead on the repair visits having been done and issues resolved within relevant timeframes. The landlord explained that each of the repairs had been unconnected, and therefore its contractors had acted correctly. In doing so the landlord failed to properly consider or respond to the resident’s actual complaint, and that was unreasonable. It is also unclear how the landlord was able to say to the resident that the repairs had been responded to within appropriate timescales, when the landlord has indicated to this Service (in response to our requests for information) that it does not have timescales.
16. The landlord told the resident that her boiler system was not old enough to be replaced. It is not apparent from the landlord’s policies and procedures that it has defined life spans for such equipment, but it is clear that in making that decision the landlord gave no indication it had considered the extensive and unusual amount of repair reports it had received about the heating and hot water system, despite the resident specifically raising that point, and the internal queries as to the actual age of the system. The landlord explained that the repairs were all unrelated. While that may be correct on a micro level, it is incorrect at a higher level, because they all appear to be related to the heating and hot water system. Not considering the wider repair history was another failing, especially as the repair records show that the landlord was aware of the resident’s particular vulnerability to the cold, and so, even though many of the repairs were attended the same day they were reported, the impact on the resident of repeated repair call outs would likely have been greater than usual. It is important to appreciate that we are not concluding here that the boiler system needs to be replaced, because that decision remains with the landlord. The failing is that the landlord gave no indication it had considered the repeated repair reports, and whether there was a wider issue that needed to be investigated and addressed.
17.  The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the optional third and final stage of its complaint process on 21 December 2021. The repair records show a further four heating or hot water repair reports in the following period up until the resident, having not heard anything more about her request, chased it up with the landlord around 9 February 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a decision whether to accept a stage three complaint should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord told the resident on 10 February 2022 that her complaint had been misplaced. It apologised and stated that it would act on her request now. The resident declined to pursue her complaint with the landlord further and brought her complaint to this service. The landlord’s error necessitated the resident having to chase the matter and delayed her bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.  
18. Overall, the landlord’s failure to consider the implications of the history of frequent repairs for the boiler/heating/hot water system, its failure to properly respond to the resident’s specific complaint on the issue, or to mitigate her heating issues once the repairs were delayed, and its mishandling of her stage three complaint were all significant. In the circumstances of it being the cold period, and the resident having health-related vulnerabilities to cold, those failings all contribute to a finding of serious service failure.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

20. In light of the findings in this investigation the landlord is ordered to:

1. Within six weeks of this report, create and implement a plan of action to investigate and resolve the frequency of repairs needed for the resident’s heating and hot water system. This should be done in collaboration and cooperation with the resident, and evidence of these actions and their outcomes must be shared with this Service by the six-week deadline.
2. Pay the resident £375 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and frustration likely to have been caused by the failings identified in this report. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence of payment provided to this Service.

Recommendations

21. It is important for a landlord to make clear the timeframes it sets to respond to repairs. We recommend the landlord considers formalising and publishing for tenants and leaseholders the repair timeframes which it explained it had adhered to in its responses to the resident’s complaints, as the repair information provided for this investigation shows no such details.