Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202206130)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206130

LiveWest Homes Limited

30 May 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water at the property.

2.The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

3.The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The property is an adapted property with a walk-in shower. The resident has confirmed that she has an auto immune disease which worsens at lower temperatures. She also has a further condition which means that access to suitable washing facilities is essential. She also has two children who are autistic.

4. The property is heated by means of an air source heat pump (ASHP). The resident state that she has experienced numerous issues with the ASHP since the commencement of the tenancy in 2012. Following a problem with the heating system in February 2022 the landlord took the decision to replace the ASHP and install new radiators. The installation of the ASHP and associated works were undertaken by a landlord contractor, during which time the property was left without heating and hot water. She property also had no hot water for a period of four days after the initial fault with the ASHP.

6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the work of the contractor and there being no hot water at the property on 15 March 2022. The landlord restored the hot water after three days and asked the contractor to return to resolve other issues. Following a further request from the resident, the landlord raised her concerns as a formal complaint. It provided a stage one response on 26 April 2022 in which it upheld the complaint, apologised for poor workmanship and raised orders to complete remedial works to box in pipework and caulk an electrical conduit.

7. The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not responded to her concerns about: additional heating costs she had incurred, trunking and the condition of the kitchen. The landlord sent its stage two response on 27 May 2022. It upheld her complaint and offered a total of £300 in compensation. This comprised £180 for electricity costs incurred by the resident in using temporary heaters and £120 for the inconvenience. Following further contact from the resident an additional £50 was offered for redecoration costs making a total of £350 compensation.

8. The resident remained dissatisfied since she believed that the landlord still had not addressed the issues of the positioning of cables and pipes internally and externally. The case was progressed to the Ombudsman for investigation. In recent correspondence, the landlord stated that it has relocated the position of the ASHP, with some redecoration to be agreed with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Landlords’ response to the installation of the ASHP

9. The resident reported that she had no heat or hot water on 21 February 2022.She also told the landlord of her health difficulties and that she was having to wash in cold water. The landlord responded with an engineer visiting the property the same day. It identified that the ASHP would have to be replaced. The landlord’s actions were in accordance with its repair obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement; its classification of the repair as an emergency repair with a 24 hour timescale for attendance was also appropriate, given that the property was without heating and hot water.

10.The landlord was aware of the household vulnerability so understood the importance of prioritising the return of both heating and hot water to the property. The supply of temporary heaters provided assistance during the period when these services were unavailable, however, it remained that the property was left without hot water for a period of four days (21 to 25 February 2022, when a system rewire put the system back into working order) and only temporary heating during this same period, the cost of which the resident subsequently raised as a further concern.

11.The resident was informed by the landlord that the installation of the new heating system would take up to six weeks. The resident was also informed that the electric cables and pipework would be put in the floorboards; however, when the contractor started the work (14 March 2022), they did not do this but installed the trunking containing the cables/pipework above the floorboards, so in sight. The contractor also said to the resident that she would be without heating or hot water for two days but then said it would be longer. It was on day two of the installation that she contacted the landlord making a complaint.

12. In the resident’s complaint she asked the landlord to get her hot water working and emphasised how important this was because of her health issues. She also stated that the contractor had put in a new radiator which meant she could not fully open the shower room door. She said that the contractor had removed a cupboard, had made a mess, had not tidied up and installed unsightly trunking. According to the records this Service has seen the landlord sent an engineer two days after the resident had been in contact to get the hot water system working. This was not an appropriate level of service. The resident had no hot water from 14 March 2022 to 17 March 2022and was again reliant on the temporary heaters during this period.

13.The landlord did not treat the resident request of 15 March 2022 as a formal complaint. It raised the issues with the contractor and the contractor visited the resident on 21 March 2022 and agreed to carry out some remedial works. The landlord spoke to the resident and arranged for its own operatives to undertake some further work including boxing in pipes in the kitchen. It also said to the resident that the trunking installed was fit for purpose.

14.The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2022 to ask why she had heard nothing about her complaint. The landlord provided a formal complaint acknowledgment two days later and gave its formal stage one response on 26 April 2022 which upheld the complaint but did not address issues that she had raised in her original complaint, including the costs she incurred whilst using temporary heaters, the trunking and the condition of the kitchen following works.

15. The landlord’s stage two response was more comprehensive, providing responses to the specific issues raised, including an increased offer of compensation and an agreement to complete further works. It accepted that the contractor had not completed works in accordance with its instructions and agreed to raise works to rectify the boxing-in in the kitchen. It also offered a total of £300 compensation – £180 for electricity costs incurred and a further £120 for inconvenience caused. The landlord did not agree, however, that the trunking in the hallway required remedial works.

16.The resident confirmed that she was dissatisfied with the decision to not move the trunking and the landlord said, during a phone conversation shortly after the final response, that it would paint this the same colour as the surrounding area when cyclical decoration works took place. It also offered the resident a further £50 for re-decoration.

17. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord complete the agreed works to the kitchen (July 2022). In recent emails (May 2023) it confirmed to this Service that it has continued to work with the resident, including re-locating the ASHP.

18. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to compensate the resident for the overall detriment experienced. The additional costs that she incurred for electricity were compensated for, with no evidence that the resident was dissatisfied with this element of the amount offered. However, the landlord’s compensation policy outlines an amount of £5 per day (or £25 per week) for loss of heating or hot water. Based on these figures the landlord’s offer of £120 would have been reasonable – the heating was out for nearly four weeks and the hot water for a total of seven days. However, as this related to a vulnerable household, a higher amount would have been appropriate.

19. In addition, the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had not completed works as instructed, with the trunking left external to the floorboards. The landlord concluded that it would not be reasonable to move this following the complaints process, though it did offer to both re-paint the trunking during future cyclical works and offered an additional £50 in compensation for any further re-decoration. On the basis that the resident was left with the trunking in an area other than what had been agreed and on account of the household vulnerability, the landlord’s offer of £120 for inconvenience is considered to be insufficient. By consequence, an overall determination of service failure has been made here, with an order for additional compensation of £100 to be paid.

Complaints Handling

20. A landlord’s complaints process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An efficient complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision and assist in developing positive landlord/tenant relationships. In this instance there is evidence that the landlord treated the residents’ concerns seriously and tried to resolve them but also that it did not follow its own complaints policy.

21. The initial email from the resident to the landlord’s complaint/compliment inbox was not dealt with as a formal complaint but as a service request. This was not explained to the resident and this Service has seen evidence that the landlord held off making it a formal complaint. The resident therefore had to write again to ask why her complaint had not been responded to. It is essential that landlord’s acknowledge complaints that are duly made to their service delivery functions. In this case the email was clearly sent through the appropriate channels by the resident and it is a concern that it was not identified as a formal complaint given the content, which clearly outlined the resident’s dissatisfaction with the service she had received.

22.The landlord’s formal stage one response, although upholding the resident’s complaint, did not address all the items she had raised. It also did not offer any compensation at that stage, despite the landlord’s compensation policy indicating that a standard amount should have been given for the use of temporary heaters and the lack of heating and hot water. It was not until the stage two response were all the issues addressed and compensation offered.

23. There were then some significant concerns about how the landlord operated its complaints process. An overall finding of service failure, rather than maladministration, has been found here however, as other elements of its complaints handling demonstrated a willingness to work with the resident. She expressed her belief that the staff member she dealt with had shown consideration and empathy and it is clear that the landlord has continued to work with her following the complaints process. An additional compensation order of £100 has been detailed below to reflect the additional failures identified here.

Determination

24.In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system at the property.

 25.In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

26.The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £550, broken down as follows:

  1. £350 as offered during the complaints process (if not already paid);
  2. £100 for the additional failures identified with its response to the heating and hot water issues;
  3. £100 for the additional failures identified with its complaints handling.

27.The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service within 28 days of this investigation report.