London Borough of Hillingdon (202310109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310109

London Borough of Hillingdon

30 July 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 handling of repairs to the heating system.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house and lives there with his wife and 4 children. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident experienced a problem with his radiators not heating properly on 12 October 2022. The landlord attended the same day and completed the repair. On 2 December 2022, the resident reported further problems with the radiators. The landlord attended on 7 separate occasions during December 2022 and January 2023 to try and resolve the issue.
On 28 February 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the problems with his heating and boiler. He stated that even when the thermostat was set to 30 degrees, the radiators were not warming properly and the noises coming from the pipes were making it difficult for his children to sleep. The resident also said that a contractor who had attended the property had informed him that the heating system needed to be replaced and that the landlord had been informed of this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2023. It stated a flue issue had been identified and that a contractor had attended and managed to get the boiler operational, albeit on some occasions there was only partial heating. The landlord further stated that following the final repairs, the operation of the system had “much improved”. It apologised for the issues caused by the boiler and the inconvenience to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 April 2023. He stated that the heating system was still not functioning properly, and he queried why the landlord had not followed the contractor’s advice to replace the system.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023. It stated that when it had considered the problems he was having, a further review of the heating system had been conducted. Based on engineer recommendations, a further flush to the system would take place on 31 May 2023. The landlord stated that once this had been completed it would establish if there were any further steps to take.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system

On 12 October 2022, the resident reported that one of his radiators was not heating up. It is not clear from the report log which radiator was affected but the job was marked as a routine repair. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord was responsible for repairs to the heating system and states that routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days. However, the landlord’s contractor attended and carried out the repair on the same day it was reported. This was a quick and positive response from the landlord.
A further fault to the resident’s heating system was recorded on 2 December 2022. The repair log stated, “Condition check, flue collector damage”. It is not clear who raised the fault or what the impact of that fault was on the resident’s heating, but the job was marked as a routine repair. A contractor attended the property on 16 December 2022. This was within the time scales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the repair could not be completed because the contractor had never carried out this type of job before and required assistance. Given the nature of the fault, the landlord should have ensured that operatives who attended the property had the sufficient skills, tools, and parts to undertake the work required.
The contractor returned to the property on 20 December 2022 and discovered that parts were required to complete the repair. While the repair was completed the following day, and within the time scales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident had been without a fully functioning heating system for 19 days during the month of December. The resident has told this Service that the property also suffers from damp, therefore windows need to be kept open during the winter months to allow the air to circulate. Without working heating, the property was much colder than it should have been, causing the resident distress.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out the health risks when temperatures fall below the minimum satisfactory levels for relatively long periods. However, landlord failed to offer additional support during this time, such as temporary heaters, to ensure the property could maintain a suitable temperature.
On 3 January 2023, the resident reported that although he had hot water, his radiators were cold. He also stated he had children in the property. The landlord appropriately prioritised this as an urgent repair and its contractor attended the same day in line with its repairs policy timescales. The contractor noted that although there was some heat, the boiler was immediately dropping to a low flame when the heating was on. The contractor recommended a referral for a power flush to resolve the issue. At this point, the landlord knew the repair was not going to be completed in line with its own policy timescales for an urgent repair (1 working day) and the resident was again without heating during the winter. It also knew there was children in the property. To be fair and reasonable to the resident and fulfil its obligations to have a functioning heating system, the landlord should have taken further steps to support the resident such as supplying him with temporary heaters.
A job for the power flush was not raised until 11 January 2023, despite the urgent nature of the required repair. While this Service accepts that the type of work needed was specialist and needed an appropriate tradesperson to complete it, it would have been reasonable to raise the job much sooner to prevent further delays to the repair. The lack of effective management and organising to put things right for the resident was a failing.
Repair logs show that the landlord supplied 2 temporary heaters to the property on 17 January 2023. It is not clear whether this was at the resident’s request or at the landlord’s initiative. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide these to the resident much sooner, given they had been without fully functioning heating in winter, with children in the property. The delay to provide adequate temporary heating was unreasonable.
The landlord carried out the power flush on 25 January 2023. The following day, the resident reported to the landlord that he was still without heating and hot water, and he had an 8-month-old baby in the house. The resident also reported the contractor had said the power flush was not necessary as the fault was with the boiler. The landlord raised another emergency repair, and a contractor attended the same day. The contractor recorded the heating was “100 percent better than before” and marked the job as complete.
The landlord response on this occasion was swift and in line with its own policy. However, the resident has stated that the contractor informed him that was the best they could do with the heating system as it needed to be replaced.
This Service has not been provided with reports from the contractor, up to this date, to say that the boiler or radiators needed to be replaced. The repair logs provided by the landlord in its case evidence are brief and not always clear what work was carried out. The contractor’s comment of the heating being “better than before” was ambiguous as the heating and hot water were not working at all to start with. It was not clear whether the system was left fully functioning or whether the situation had just been improved from a low starting point.
On 28 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to formally complain that it had not fixed the issues with his radiators and boiler. He reported that the contractor has said they had recommended the heating system should be upgraded or changed, but the landlord had not acted upon their recommendation. The resident also stated that despite the thermostat being turned up to 30 degrees, the radiators were not warming up properly.
The landlord failed to take any action from receiving the complaint, until it issued its stage 1 response on 3 April 2023. This suggests that the landlord left the resident with a faulty heating system for over a month and was a significant failing.
This Service asked the landlord whether the contractors had advised it the heating system needed changing. The landlord confirmed that multiple visits from the contractor had suggested circulation issues but “at the time it was felt [the contractors] were not carrying out detailed enough investigations to find the root cause of problems”. Despite this, the landlord failed to take action to complete further investigations until a much later date.
The landlord was also asked whether there were any reasons for the delays in responding to the resident’s concerns. The landlord stated that it was going through a number of staffing changes at the end of 2022, start of 2023, which may have delayed responses to the resident. A landlord should have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that service delivery is not impacted in periods of staff turnover. This was a further failing and unreasonable that the resident experienced a drop in service standards.
The stage 1 response, to some extent, acknowledged the delays to the repair. It stated that the first breakdown was due to a flue issue that was not picked until a more recent visit to the property. In relation to the further breakdowns, the landlord stated, “On the subsequent visits, [contractor] attended and managed to get the boiler operational, albeit on some occasions it may have been partial heating, whilst I appreciate this was not ideal, [contractor] noted that following the final repairs, the operation of the system was now much improved.” The landlord further commented that the resident also had some low surface temperature radiators within the property that may appear not to have reached temperature but were working correctly.
This response did not provide the resident with reassurance that the heating was fully fixed or that his concerns were being taken seriously, given the landlord had failed to visit the property since the complaint was made. The response also failed to address why the landlord had not considered the contractor’s recommendation of replacing the system, something the resident had specifically queried.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 21 April 2023, he again informed the landlord that his heating system was not functioning properly and queried why the landlord had not commented on the contractor’s recommendation.
Following the landlord’s acknowledgement on 27 April 2023, it raised a job to carry out an inspection of the heating system. It is not clear whether the job was issued to the same contractor the landlord had doubts over, or a different one. The job was given routine priority and the landlord’s contractor carried out the inspection on 3 May 2023, within the time scales set out in its repairs policy. The contractor’s report stated that the heating system and radiators were “very old”, and a new boiler and radiators were required. While the inspection was a positive step for the landlord to take, it should have been completed sooner given the concerns the landlord had over the previous contractor inspections. However, the landlord failed to act on the recommendations of the report at this stage.
On 18 May 2023, the resident again reported that he was receiving insufficient heat to the radiators. The landlord raised a regular priority job, and its contractor attended the property on 24 May 2023 to assess the heating system. The contractor reported that the system needed a power flush as previously it had not been done properly. The report also stated that the radiators “might be ok” once the boiler was “all up and running”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023. It stated that due to the continued issues, it had carried out an inspection report, which determined that further flushing was required and had been arranged for 31 May 2023. The landlord also stated that it would follow up after the flushing had taken place to determine whether there was any further action for it to take.
While the landlord apologised for the problems the resident had experienced, it stated, “contrary to your comments, the appliance is not of age for replacement yet and I believe the issue is more system related rather than the boiler.” This contradicted the advice the landlord had received from the contractor and caused the resident further frustration.
The response did not reflect the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The resident had been experiencing heating issues for 5 months, including through the winter months, and despite swift action to deploy contractors, the problem was not addressed, and contractor recommendations had been ignored. This was a significant failing which resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation policy identifies that any remedy should, as far as possible, put the resident back into the position that he would have been in if the maladministration had not occurred. Maladministration is defined in the policy as including neglect and unjustified delay. It also identifies that in some circumstances, a financial remedy may be appropriate to achieve this. The landlord failed to consider the impact to the resident and apply its own compensation policy. This was inappropriate given the evidence the landlord was aware off and should have informed its decision making.
The resident made a further call to the landlord on 9 June 2023 to report he had no heating, and the water was only running lukewarm. The landlord raised an emergency job and the landlord’s contractor attended the same day to assess the heating system. The landlord’s contractor reported that while the hot water was hot upon inspection the radiators were in fact cold despite the further work that had been carried out. The contractor commented that the radiators were around 40 years old and needed to be upgraded. The industry standard for replacing radiators is between 15 and 20 years, which suggests that the resident’s radiators should have been replaced long before the problems started.
While the landlord did replace the boiler on 19 July 2023, it failed to take any action regarding the radiators, despite the contractor’s earlier recommendations and the age of the radiators. The resident has told this Service that despite the new boiler being installed, he is still experiencing problems with the radiators, which have been reported to the landlord. The resident also stated that he stopped reporting the heating problems after a certain period of time because no action was being taken and it was wasted time and effort on his behalf.
A warm home and hot water are basic needs for any household. A lack of heating or hot water does not just cause discomfort but can be a risk to health and well-being, especially is the property is susceptible to damp. The resident has lived with dysfunctional radiators for over 19 months, including through 2 periods of winter.
While the landlord may have raised jobs appropriately and ensured attendance to those jobs was in line with its policy, it failed to ensure the repairs were completed effectively and ignored the recommendations of its contractors. This has caused distress and frustration to the resident, who feels that his problems have been ignored by the landlord. The resident’s reluctance to report issues in indicative of a loss in confidence in the landlord to provide a functioning repair service, and a breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system by failing to effectively repair the issues when it became aware that the system needed to be replaced. This has caused the resident to be without normal heating for a prolonged period and caused him and his family distress and frustration. An order has been made that the landlord pay £1,400 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This has been calculated at £100 per month to cover the period from one month after the issue was reported to the landlord on 3 May 2023 through to the present date. (June 2023 to July 2024).

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint process is an essential aspect of the overall service delivery provision. An effective 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.
The resident made his formal complaint to the landlord in February 2023. While the exact date is unknown, he said he made the complaint by phone, but the landlord did not respond. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint can be made in several ways, including by telephone. It also states that a complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days. The landlord failed to record and acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint in line with its own policy. This was a significant failing which fundamentally undermines confidence in the landlord’s complaint process.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 28 February 2023, in a further attempt to make his complaint. He also stated he had previously made the complaint by phone and had received no response. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 13 March 2023. This was 9 working days after the complaint had been received and was a further failing against the standards set out in its policy.
The acknowledgement informed the resident that he would receive his stage 1 response by 27 March 2023. This would be 10 working days after the complaint was received. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days. Therefore, the landlord was acting inline with its own policy in relation to its response to the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2023, 24 working days after the complaint was received and 5 working days after the date given in its acknowledgement. Despite the delay, the landlord did not update the resident, as set out in its policy, or manage his expectations. These were further failings.
The resident escalated his complaint by email on 21 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged his request on 27 April 2023, 4 working days later. The acknowledgement informed the resident he would receive his stage 2 response by 15 May 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 May 2023, to say that there would be a delay to his response, and he could expect to receive it by 29 May 2023. This was a positive step for the landlord to take and in line with its own policy that states residents will be informed of any delays to responses.
On 25 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. While this was issued before the expected due date, the response wrongly referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he wished to take his complaint further. This caused unnecessary confusion to the resident and further delay in resolving this complaint.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s original complaint made by phone. The landlord has stated that these details were not held on file.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling by failing to record the resident’s original complaint and failing to comply with its own complaint policy. These failures have caused delay to the resolution of the complaint and have also caused further frustration to the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay £200 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1,600 in compensation made up of:
  1. £1,400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the heating system.
  2. £200 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Undertake a review of its record keeping system and takes steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures all contact from a resident (including service requests and complaints) is recorded and retained so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to upgrade the resident’s radiators, as recommended by its contractor due to their age, and complete any outstanding work to ensure the resident has a fully functional heating system.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.