London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202120367)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120367

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 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:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s boiler and the level of compensation offered.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident has a visual impairment and is registered disabled. 
  2. The resident initially reported that her boiler was leaking in November 2020 this was attended to the following day. She reported the issue again on 2 January 2021, the boiler was isolated and a warning notice was issued. As the boiler was over 10 years old, the engineer recommended replacing the entire boiler. The resident was without use of heating and hot water from this date. Contractors attended on 8 January 2021 to measure up for a new boiler and the boiler was fitted on 20 January 2021. Following the installation, the resident reported a gas leak on 22 January 2021 and her boiler was turned off by the national grid. On 26 January 2021 works to install boxing around the boiler was completed.
  3. The resident raised a complaint during January 2021 as she was dissatisfied that she had been left without heating and hot water for three weeks during winter months. She was frustrated that she had initially been told in November 2020 that a new boiler was not needed and that the contractor had misdiagnosed the issue initially, leaving her with an unsafe boiler. Once the boiler had been installed she had experienced a gas leak and was dissatisfied with the quality of work carried out by the operative as this could have harmed her and others in the building. In addition, she said that the issues had caused anxiety about the safety of the property and felt the landlord had disregarded her disability when handling the issue. She was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and said she had incurred out of pocket expenses by needing to use temporary heaters.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the level of service the resident had received and for the length of time the issue had taken to resolve. It apologised for any miscommunication regarding the premature closure of her complaint and explained that the gas leak from the resident’s cooker was not found to be related to the installation of the new boiler. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the delay, its poor communication and the time she was without heating and hot water over the winter months and offered £364 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair. This was comprised of £44 for the loss of heating and hot water, £60 for the inconvenience caused, £60 for the distress caused and £200 for her time and effort due to its poor communication.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to her time without heating and hot water and the additional costs she had incurred by using temporary heaters. She also advised that the issues experienced had affected her mental health and was dissatisfied with the level of communication from the landlord. In her communication she added that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and that she had to chase a response on multiple occasions. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the boiler issues experienced and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler and the level of compensation offered.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the installations supplied for the provision of hot water and heating.it states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours to ‘make safe’, follow on works will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. All routine repairs will be arranged at the earliest mutually convenient appointment and in line with best practice, this should usually be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially reported a leak from her boiler on 9 November 2020, this was attended the following day within 24 hours and reported as completed. It is noted that the resident made a further report again in January 2021, however the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the boiler did not need to be replaced at the time. Following the resident’s further report on 2 January 2021, the landlord attended within its policy timescales and recommended that the boiler be replaced due to its age. It acted appropriately by providing temporary heaters. The boiler was replaced on 20 January 2021, 18 days later. Whilst some delay was reasonable at this stage due to the need to measure the space for a new boiler and to order parts, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided an expected completion date in order to manage the resident’s expectations. This would have also been appropriate in view of the resident’s medical conditions as the circumstances may have been more inconvenient in the resident’s case. The records indicate that the resident repeatedly called for updates which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by providing the resident with temporary heaters for the period she was without use of her boiler. The resident has advised that she had incurred additional costs as a result of using the heaters and it is therefore recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for her additional energy costs as a result of using temporary heaters. In order for the landlord to do so, the resident should provide receipts to the landlord alongside statements from the previous year for comparison so that it can consider this.
  4. The resident also raised concern that she had experienced a gas leak from her cooker on 22 January 2021, two days after the new boiler was installed. She said she was informed that the operative had not carried out suitable checks on the boiler which had caused the gas leak and noted the impact on her mental health as a result. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating this matter alongside its contractors who determined that the gas leak from the cooker was not related to the boiler installation and the certificates completed at the time of the installation showed no issues when completing the checks. Ultimately there is no enough evidence to show that the issues were directly related but the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the length of time it had taken to replace the boiler and its poor communication and apologising to the resident. It put things right by awarding £364 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair. This was comprised of £44 for the loss of heating and hot water, £60 for the inconvenience caused, £60 for the distress caused and £200 for her time and effort due to its poor communication which also considered the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the complaint.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide specific guidance about the amount payable for loss of heating and hot water. However, the landlord’s award of £44 is considered proportionate in line with industry best practice guidance of around £2-£3 per day over approximately 20 days. it also acted appropriately by acknowledging the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter. The compensation award is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which states that amounts between £250 – £700 are proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration. Examples include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the overall distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond in writing within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a written response within 20 working days. if there are likely to be any delays, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reasons for any delay and provide a new response timeframe.
  2. In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 31 January 2021. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 15 March 2021, which was 20 working days outside of its policy timescales. The landlord apologised for the delay at this stage which was appropriate but did not provide an explanation. There is also no evidence that it had informed the resident of the delay in advance in order to manage her expectations.
  3. The resident was dissatisfied that the complaint was closed at this stage without communication. Landlords are entitled to ‘close’ complaints once a response has been issued at each stage of its complaints process as long as it provides information on how the complaint can be escalated if the resident is dissatisfied. Whilst it is noted that the resident advised the landlord that she had not received this response on 12 April 2021, this was re-sent within a timely manner. On 22 April 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response and that the complaint had been closed without notice. The landlord failed to provide information on how the complaint could be escalated within its response which was likely to have caused confusion. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the miscommunication and apologising to the resident.
  4. The landlord issued an informal email response on 7 May 2021 where it offered compensation for its failings related to the boiler, however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the resident’s communication as a stage two escalation at this stage and formally responded due to her dissatisfaction. The resident appears to have escalated her complaint on 10 May 2021 so was not significantly disadvantaged by this failing, however, a copy of the escalation has not been provided to this Service for review.
  5. Whilst the landlord updated the resident on her complaint on 23 June 2021, this update was issued 11 working days outside of its 20-working day policy for response at stage two and it is noted that the resident had needed to pursue updates. In addition, whilst the communication noted that it was taking longer than expected to provide a response, it did not offer the resident an expected timeframe for response in order to manage her expectations. The landlord discussed the complaint and level of compensation with the resident over email on 26 August 2021, it then issued its stage two complaint response on 31 August 2021. This was 60 working days outside of its policy timescales for handling complaints at stage two and likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience.
  6. The landlord did however, apologise for the delays at each stage and acknowledged the miscommunication regarding the premature closure of the complaint. Whilst its offer of £200 compensation in view of the resident’s time and trouble did not specifically refer to its complaint handling failures within its response, a significant amount of the time and trouble taken by the resident related to the formal complaint and as such, the overall offer of compensation is considered proportionate in view of the service failings identified and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler and the level of compensation offered, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £364 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for her additional energy costs as a result of using temporary heaters whilst she was without use of her boiler. The resident should provide receipts to the landlord alongside statements from the previous year for comparison so that it can consider this.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord provides clear breakdowns of how compensation figures are calculated and what these relate to, in order to prevent any confusion for residents.
  4. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure the correct process is followed and residents are informed of the reasons for any delay and provided with an expected response timeframe.