London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207197

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the gas safety check and a missing cap from the boiler.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat and the resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 28 June 2004.
The resident advised the landlord that she had various medical conditions and during part of 2022-23 the resident was pregnant.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for ensuring all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating are kept repaired and in working order.
It is a condition of the tenancy that the resident must allow access for the landlord’s staff, agents or contractors to:
1. Inspect or carry out repairs at reasonable hours (the landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice, unless it is an emergency repair).
2. Carry out the annual servicing of appliances, for example gas appliances.

Summary of events

The landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the gas safety check and a missing cap from the boiler

The landlord’s maintenance log shows that the landlord’s gas contractor shut down the resident’s boiler on 6 December 2021 during the annual gas safety check. The landlord therefore raised an order on the same day for the contractor to carry out repairs to the boiler as the resident had no heating or hot water. The order also instructed the contractor to install a carbon monoxide (CO) alarm in the property.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on the same day (6 December 2021) and stated that the contractor had rushed the previous gas safety check (carried out in February 2021) and had left the carbon monoxide cap off the boiler. The resident stated that as a result of the contractor’s actions her health had deteriorated.
On 8 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she needed heating and hot water in the property as she was receiving hospital treatment for respiratory issues. She queried why she had not been asked to sign anything following the gas safety check on 6 December 2021 and asked why the boiler had been shut down.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that an appointment was booked for the contractor to fit the boiler cap on 8 December 2021 but it did not attend the appointment. The landlord’s records show that the work was completed on 10 December 2021.
On 17 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that the contractor had left the cap of the boiler due to “incompetence” during the previous gas safety check and therefore had failed in its duty of care. She requested compensation for the electricity costs of running a fan heater during the days the boiler was not working. She also requested compensation for food costs and parking expenses when she had attended hospital as a result of not feeling well.
The landlord exchanged emails with its contractor during January 2022 to establish the details about the missing boiler cap. The emails concluded that it had been the cap on the air intake side of the boiler flue that had been missing (rather than the cap on the exhaust side). Therefore, the landlord stated this had “massively” reduced the risk of the resident being exposed to carbon monoxide.
The evidence shows that the landlord fitted a CO alarm in December 2021 (this Service has not seen any information confirming the precise date).
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 3 February 2022, in which it stated:
1. The gas servicing had been carried out on 6 December 2021 and, during the servicing, the boiler had been shut down because the contractor had noticed the “flue test point cap” was missing from the boiler.
2. The previous gas servicing had been carried on 26 February 2021 and the report did not mention the missing cap.
3. The landlord explained that although the boiler had been shut down as a precaution, there had been minimal risk of carbon monoxide entering the property through the cap in question.
4. The landlord said it took the matter very seriously and would ensure that the contractor’s engineers were given a ‘toolbox talk’ about the incident. The landlord said it would also audit other jobs that had been completed at about the same time to ensure the error had not been repeated elsewhere.
5. The landlord offered to arrange for the resident to meet its Gas Compliance Manager to discuss her concerns.
6. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £120, comprised of:
  1. £20 for the loss of gas supply from 6 to 10 December 2021;
  2. £20 for the missed appointment on 8 December 2021;
  3. £40 for inconvenience; and
  4. £40 for distress.
The resident replied to the landlord’s stage one letter on 3 February 2022 and questioned how she could trust the contractor’s work going forward. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 February 2022 and stated that it had left a voicemail message for the resident. It advised that the missing boiler cap had been escalated to the engineer’s manager and would be addressed with the engineer directly. All engineers would undertake ‘toolbox training’ regarding the issue and their work would be audited to ensure it did not happen again. The landlord repeated that there had been minimal risk of carbon monoxide entering the property as a result of the missing cap as this would have caused the boiler to burn incorrectly.
On 15 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the landlord had not addressed her concerns.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint and to apologise for the delay, which it stated was because it had introduced a new approach to complaints handling.
The landlord’s complaints log shows that during May to July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request a reply to her stage 2 complaint.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she had not received a reply to her stage 2 complaint and as a result the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 August 2022 and requested it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 September 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that the boiler had been shut down on 6 December 2021 due to the missing boiler cap and that the contractor had missed an appointment on 8 December 2021. The landlord stated that the contractor had failed to attend because it was awaiting a part for the boiler.
2. The landlord had noted that the resident had not been provided with temporary heating and therefore had to stay at her sister’s property.
3. The landlord repeated its earlier advice, which was that the chances of carbon monoxide blowing back into the property as a result of the missing cap were minimal. Nevertheless it had taken the matter very seriously and had carried out further training and audited jobs that had been completed at around the same time to ensure the error had not been repeated elsewhere.
4. The landlord noted the resident’s report that her health had deteriorated due to the missing boiler cap and provided her with details for making a claim through its insurers.
5. The landlord apologised for the level of service and delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It offered her additional compensation of £160, which was comprised of £30 for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint, £100 for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint and £30 for service failure. The sum was in addition to the £120 offered at stage one and therefore the total compensation offered was £280.
The resident replied to the landlord on 10 September 2022 and stated that the landlord had in her view failed to take the matter seriously. She added that the landlord had not answered her previous questions and she queried why the landlord had not fitted a carbon monoxide alarm sooner. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 22 September to reject its offer of compensation.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 10 October 2022 to say she did not feel comfortable letting the contractor carry out future gas safety checks in her property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water

On 8 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that an operative had arrived at her property without an appointment to carry out the annual gas safety check. The resident therefore did not give access and stated that she wanted a competent person to carry out the safety check. A new appointment was made and the gas safety check was carried out on 18 November 2022. The landlord’s gas safety record shows that the appliances passed the safety check and no faults were noted.
On 20 November 2022, the resident contacted the contractor to report that her boiler had been “making noises” and was “cutting out” since 18 November 2022 after the gas safety check. She stated that she was concerned the boiler had been signed off during the safety check as having no faults. However, it was now showing a fault code, which could be seen on a video she submitted.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that it raised an emergency order on 21 November 2022 for the contractor to repair the boiler as the resident had no heating or hot water. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 November 2022 to explain that the boiler had been serviced on 18 November 2022 and on the same day in the evening the boiler had started making noises and was now displaying an error code. She reported that she had not had heating or hot water over the weekend.
The landlord’s maintenance log states that the contractor attended on 21 November 2022 but there was no access to the property. Therefore, the landlord raised a new order and made an appointment for the contractor to attend on 25 November 2022.
The landlord’s complaint log shows it raised a new complaint regarding the lack of heating and hot water and wrote to the resident on 22 November 2022 to acknowledge the complaint.
On 25 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she wanted to submit a further complaint as the contractor had not arrived for the appointment on 25 November 2022. She had waited in the property, even though the property was cold and she was pregnant. The resident had then needed to leave the property for a pre-booked appointment. (The landlord later stated in its stage 2 reply that the operative had attended late on this day due to a major road incident).
The resident had phoned the contractor on Saturday, 26 November 2022 to ask whether it could attend but it had been unable to accommodate the request. A new appointment was made for the contractor to attend on 29 November 2022. On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the contractor had arrived late and had not phoned the resident to advise her of this (the landlord’s records stated that the contractor arrived after 8pm that evening).
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 December 2022, in which it stated the following:
1. The boiler had passed the gas safety check.
2. On 29 November 2022, the engineer had confirmed that the boiler was showing an L2 error code and on investigation found that the condensate trap was blocked. Parts were ordered and the contractor’s management had been made aware.
3. The landlord apologised for the time it was taking to carry out the repair and said it would discuss this with the contractor at their monthly meeting.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 December 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as she felt the landlord had not addressed the issues raised. She questioned why she had not been asked to sign any documents or been left any paperwork in relation to the gas safety check.
Following further contact from the resident, the contractor agreed on 9 December 2022 that it would provide temporary heating. The contractor’s notes stated that a ‘Gallo gun’ was needed to remove the blockage in the condensate trap on the boiler and the contractor did not know when this equipment would be available. (This Service understands that a ‘Gallo gun’ is a portable tool that uses air to blow debris and other blockages from condensate pipes in boilers).
The landlord’s records show that a temporary fan heater was delivered to the property on 10 December 2022. The notes also show that the resident was unhappy that the contractor had delivered a fan heater instead of an oil filled radiator. The contractor advised the resident on 12 December 2022 that it had completely used up its stock of oil filled radiators and therefore had to provide a fan heater.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended the property with the Gallo gun on 12 December 2022 but the resident refused access. The contractor’s notes stated that access was refused because the resident was expecting someone to attend with parts for the boiler. The notes added that the resident was refusing to grant access until the contractor returned with the necessary parts. The contractor wrote to the resident on 13 December 2022 to apologise that the resident had not been notified of the appointment on 12 December 2022.
During the remainder of December 2022, the resident chased the landlord on various occasions to advise that she had no heating or hot water. The resident also stated that she was not happy with the heater that had been supplied by the contractor as it was using a lot of electricity. On 22 December 2022, the resident again asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
On 29 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the contractor was on site but did not have the boiler part that was needed. On the same day, the contractor advised the resident that it had needed a piece of equipment (the Gallo gun), rather than a boiler part. The landlord’s complaint log states that the contractor had attended on 29 December 2022 and had cleared the blockage with a Gallo gun. The contractor’s notes stated that the boiler had been left in working order.
On 10 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the boiler and pipes had been cleaned but the hot water taps in the kitchen and bathroom were making “pressure” sounds when in use. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 12 January 2023 to report that she had found water on the kitchen floor and in the kitchen sink cupboard. She stated that this was linked to the boiler issues and the noise from the taps and that the contractor had only carried out a temporary repair to the boiler.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 January 2023 and reported that she still did not have heating, hot water and cold water, despite being pregnant and having medical conditions. She advised the landlord that she had shut the water off as water was leaking into the kitchen cupboard. The contractor spoke with the resident on 18 January 2023 to book an appointment. However, according to the contractor, the resident had advised that she could not confirm her availability because of pre-booked hospital appointments.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day (18 January 2023) and advised that the resident’s complaint (stage 2) was still active. The contractor then contacted the resident on 24 January 2023 and informed her that it had received a repair order from the landlord regarding the lack of heating and water. It had therefore booked an appointment for 2 February 2023.
The appointment took place on 2 February 2023 and the contractor left the boiler in working order. The next day, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had attended with the contractor on 2 February 2023 and the contractor had been able to rectify the problems with the boiler and the radiators. It explained that a new radiator valve had been ordered as one of the bedroom radiators was found to be leaking and that this may have caused the problems with the boiler pressure. The landlord also confirmed that it had ordered a boiler filter and new taps for the kitchen and bathroom. Finally, the landlord advised the resident that it had requested a £30 fuel payment voucher for the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 February 2023 and declined the offer of the £30 fuel voucher. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2023 and apologised that it had not yet replied to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that the new kitchen and bathroom taps were fitted on 24 February 2023.
Between 2 and 8 March 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged emails regarding the landlord’s handling of the reported boiler problems. The resident advised the landlord that she was in hospital and her baby had passed away. She stated that she had been under a great deal of stress for months.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and identified a single point of contact for the resident. It also asked whether she wanted its maintenance supervisor to inspect her home to identify any outstanding repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 with its stage 2 reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord informed the resident that its offer of arranging for its maintenance supervisor to inspect the property would remain open until May 2023.
2. The landlord had spoken to the resident on 9 March 2023 and advised her that it could offer her support if needed. However, the resident stated that she had family support.
3. Due to the volume of emails received from the resident, it had not been possible to reply to all of the emails. In addition, the landlord stated that many of the emails had not included the resident’s name and address and this had contributed to the delays. The landlord apologised for any delays in responding.
4. The landlord apologised that an operative had attended on 8 November 2022 to carry out the annual gas safety check without an appointment.
5. The landlord advised that the resident’s signature is not required as part of the annual gas safety check.
6. The landlord stated that it did not know whether the boiler servicing carried out on 18 November 2022 contributed to or triggered the subsequent boiler problems reported by the resident.
7. The landlord apologised that its stage one reply had incorrectly referred to boiler parts being ordered rather than equipment and this may have contributed to the later confusion about whether equipment or parts were needed.
8. The landlord also apologised that it had not followed up the outstanding works order when it sent the stage one reply.
9. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,370 made up as follows:
  1. £420 for loss of heating and hot water for 15 weeks (£4 per day);
  2. £300 for inconvenience and stress over the 15 week period;
  3. £100 goodwill payment towards extra electricity costs;
  4. £250 for the delay in completing repairs and attending jobs without an appointment;
  5. £250 for miscommunications including those within the stage one reply;
  6. £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
In response to the stage 2 reply, the resident wrote to the landlord on 31 March 2023 and on various dates during April and May 2023. Some of the points included in the resident’s emails were:
1. The resident stated that the landlord had still not provided a copy of the gas safety check record for 2022, despite her requesting this on various occasions.
2. The resident had not been able to book an appointment or respond to emails while she had been in hospital during March 2023.
3. The resident felt that the landlord’s stage 2 response did not accurately represent the level of distress she had experienced due to having no heating or hot water.
4. The fan heater provided by the contractor had been expensive to run.
5. The resident had informed the contractor that she was only available during the morning due to hospital appointments in the afternoons. Therefore, she could not wait for the operative on 25 November 2022. The resident stated she had phoned the landlord on various occasions to check whether the operative would be attending.
6. The contractor had attended the property on 12 December 2022 unannounced. The resident had advised the operative that she had just been released from hospital and had been ordered by her doctor to rest and therefore could not allow any work to proceed.
7. The lack of heating and hot water should have been treated as an emergency due to her being pregnant and having medical conditions.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 May 2023 to decline the landlord’s offer of compensation as she felt the landlord’s stage 2 reply had important omissions and the landlord had not taken the issues seriously.
The resident wrote to this Service on 23 October 2023 to advise that she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the various heating issues she had experienced.
On 25 October 2023, the resident wrote to this Service to confirm she had now received the gas safety records for the last 3 years.
On 25 October 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that, in accordance with its policy, it had paid the compensation into the resident’s rent account to offset rent arrears.

The landlord wrote to this Service on 29 January 2024 to advise that it had considered whether to report the missing air intake cap to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 2013. The landlord has stated that its internal assessment, using expert guidance, indicated that the missing air intake cap did not fall within the criteria outlined in RIDDOR for mandatory reporting.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord and this Service on various occasions to advise that her health had been affected by the events outlined in her complaints. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or through the landlord’s public liability insurance. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord provided the resident with details of how she could submit an insurance claim in its stage 2 reply dated 8 September 2022. The resident may also wish to consider taking independent legal advice.
This Service is also unable to determine whether the reported loss of heating and hot water and the missing boiler cap were linked to the resident’s tragic loss of her baby. The Ombudsman would again advise the resident that she may wish to seek independent legal advice in relation to this matter.

The resident has stated that the landlord’s contractor failed in its duty of care towards her by omitting the boiler cap and has therefore indicated that, in her view, the contractor was negligent. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence or liability in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision on these matters.

Finally, the Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine whether the resident was exposed to carbon monoxide as a result of the missing boiler cap. The role of this Service to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions taking all of the circumstances into account.

The landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the gas safety check and a missing cap from the boiler

The landlord’s gas servicing policy, which was in operation in 2021, stated:
1. That it would comply with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) codes of practice and guidelines, as well as The Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure (GIUSP).
2. “We will install carbon monoxide detectors in selected ‘higher risk’ properties”.
The GIUSP states: “An ‘at risk’ installation is where one or more recognised faults are present which could constitute a danger to life or property without further faults developing…the installation will be turned off and should not be used again until the fault has been repaired”.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 came into force on 1 October 2022. From that date, registered providers of social housing had to ensure that a carbon monoxide alarm was fitted “in any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers)”.
It is a legal requirement that all businesses engaged in the repair or servicing of gas appliances must be on the Gas Safe register. The Gas Safe website states that a gas engineer can only be part of a Gas Safe registered business and be issued with a licence to undertake gas work if they hold a valid and current qualification.
The landlord’s gas contractor carried out the annual gas safety check in the property on 26 February 2021. The landlord’s records show that the contractor noted there was a lack of earth bonding at the meter. However, the evidence shows that the property went on to pass the gas safety check.
The contractor carried out the next annual gas check on 6 December 2021 and found that a cap was missing from the boiler (the landlord later confirmed that the missing cap was the flue test point cap on the air intake side). The contractor therefore shut down the boiler and disconnected it from the gas supply. The landlord raised an order on the same day to carry out repairs to the boiler as the resident had no heating or hot water. The order also instructed the contractor to fit a CO alarm in the property.
The company that carried out the gas safety checks was a Gas Safe registered contractor. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the contractor to carry out the gas safety checks and to meet the gas regulations and required quality standards. The evidence shows that the landlord was not aware of the missing boiler cap prior to 6 December 2021. Therefore, as liability for a repair only arises when the landlord has received ‘notice’ of a defect, the landlord could not reasonably have been expected to take action before it was made aware of the problem.
As the contractor had deemed the boiler to be “at risk” on 6 December 2021 because of the missing boiler cap, it was appropriate for the contractor to shut off the boiler and disconnect it from the gas supply. This action was in accordance with the GIUSP. It was also appropriate for the landlord to raise an order on the same day for the fault to be rectified as the resident had no heating or hot water. However, the contractor did not attend an appointment to fit the cap on 8 December 2021. This was inappropriate as the resident continued to be without heating and hot water. The missing boiler cap was replaced on 10 December 2021.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 6 December 2021 and stated that her health had deteriorated because the contractor had not carried out the gas safety check correctly in February 2021. The landlord replied on 3 February 2022 and stated that there had been minimal risk of exposure to CO as the cap had been missing from the air intake side of the boiler. The landlord confirmed in its stage one letter that it took the incident very seriously and would take the following action:
1. The contractor’s engineers would be given further training in the form of toolbox talks regarding the incident.
2. The landlord would audit other jobs completed during the same period to ensure the error had not been repeated elsewhere.
3. The landlord provided reassurance to the resident that the risk of CO was minimal and offered a meeting with its Gas Compliance Manager to discuss any concerns the resident had.
4. The landlord later added in an email on 8 February 2022 that the missing boiler cap had been escalated to the engineer’s manager so that the manager could raise the issue directly with the engineer.
In the Ombudsman’s view these steps were reasonable because the landlord had recognised the need to highlight the incident to the contractor’s engineers and the manager of the engineer involved in the incident. It was also reasonable as a precaution for the landlord to check other jobs that had taken place during the period in question. Finally, the internal email exchanges between the landlord and contractor show that the landlord had assessed the risks of the resident’s exposure to CO and had concluded that the risk was minimal. It was reasonable that the landlord had considered the risks as it was important for the landlord to understand the level of risk that the resident had been exposed to in order to take appropriate action.
The landlord’s offer of a meeting for the resident with its Gas Compliance Manager was helpful as it provided the resident with an opportunity to discuss her concerns with one of the landlord’s gas experts.
The resident had advised the landlord that her health had deteriorated as a result of the missing boiler cap. In response, the landlord provided the resident with details of its insurers. This was appropriate as its compensation policy states that where alleged injury occurs because of its contractor’s negligence, the issue will be referred to its insurance team.
The landlord’s stage 2 reply noted that temporary heating had not been provided to the resident during the period the boiler had been disconnected. Although the period that the boiler was unusable was relatively short, it was nevertheless inappropriate that the landlord had not supplied temporary heating to the resident.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the total or partial loss of space and water heating from 1 November to 30 April is treated as an emergency/urgent repair. The landlord’s policy is to carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and therefore as it was unable to meet this timescale, the landlord should have made arrangements to provide an alternative temporary source of heating.
In failing to provide temporary heating, the landlord did not pay sufficient regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2020. The resident had written to the landlord on 8 December 2021 to advise that she was receiving hospital treatment for respiratory issues and was therefore vulnerable. The resident stated that the impact of the lack of heating was that she was unable to remain in the property and had to stay at a relative’s house.
The landlord’s records show that it fitted a CO alarm in the property in December 2021 (the resident has advised this Service that she requested the CO alarm). The landlord was not under a legal obligation to fit the alarm as it only became a legal requirement for social landlord’s to fit CO alarms from 1 October 2022. It was therefore a positive step that the landlord had fitted a CO alarm as this provided the resident with additional reassurance.
The resident was unhappy that she had not been asked to sign any documents after the gas safety check on 18 November 2022. The landlord replied to this point in its stage 2 reply dated 30 March 2023 and advised that the resident’s signature was not required as part of the annual gas safety check. As neither the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 nor the landlord’s gas safety policy stipulate the need for a resident’s signature, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £120. This sum included a £20 payment for the missed appointment on 8 December 2021, which was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The sum also included £20 for the delay in carrying out the repair, which was calculated from 24 hours after the boiler was shut down until it was repaired on 10 December 2021. This was again in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
Finally, the landlord’s £120 offer included £80 for inconvenience and distress. As the loss of heating/hot water had resulted from the contractor’s original error, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the inconvenience and distress this had caused and offer compensation to put things right. The sum offered was within the range of compensation specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures involving distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The view of this Service is that the sum offered by the landlord was therefore proportionate.
The resident repeatedly stated to the landlord that she felt the landlord had not taken the matter seriously. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest this was the case based on the action taken by the landlord.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord made a reasonable offer of financial redress in addition to the following action to put things right:
1. The landlord raised an order to replace the boiler cap in a timely manner.
2. The landlord took steps to ensure there was appropriate learning from the error by arranging for the contractor to hold toolbox talks and by raising the matter with the engineer’s manager.
3. The landlord took steps to ensure that the same error had not been made in relation to other jobs carried out during the same period.
4. The landlord provided additional reassurance to the resident by fitting a CO alarm and offering a meeting with its Gas Compliance Manager.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. “For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, we will attend within 24 hours”
2. “For emergency works that occur out of hours, we will attend within 4 hours”.
3. “For routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
4. “We are also able to adjust our service standards where a delay would put [vulnerable residents] at risk because of their condition”.
On 20 November 2022, the resident contacted the contractor to report that her boiler had been “making noises” since 18 November 2022 after the gas safety check and was “cutting out”. She sent the landlord a video showing an error code that was showing on the boiler. On 21 November 2022, she then reported to the landlord that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord therefore raised an emergency order on 21 November 2022 and the contractor attended on the same day. However, there was no access.
As the resident was without heating and hot water, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an emergency order and attended the property on the same day (on 21 November 2022). The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence confirming the reason the resident did not provide access on 21 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy states that appointments are not be made for emergency repairs.
The resident stated in her email dated 21 November 2022 that the engineer who serviced the boiler on 18 November 2022 should not have passed the boiler as satisfactory as it developed a fault shortly afterwards. The contractor advised the resident on 21 November 2022 that at the time of the servicing, there were no faults noted with the boiler.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it was unknown whether the boiler servicing could have contributed or triggered the subsequent problems with the boiler. The view of this Service is that in the absence of specific evidence linking the boiler breakdown to the servicing, the landlord’s response that it could not attribute the faults to the gas servicing was reasonable. This is because boilers contain complex parts and there are a range of reasons why they can break down.
The new appointment was made for the contractor to attend on 25 November 2022. However, there was no access because the contractor arrived late and the resident had to leave for a prearranged appointment. The resident had phoned on the day to check that the operative was still due to attend and the resident was given no indication that the operative would not arrive on time. The landlord later advised the resident that the operative had arrived late because of a major road incident. However, it was unreasonable that the contractor had not advised the resident prior to the appointed time that the operative would be late.
The lack of communication meant that the resident had to ring the landlord during the day to check progress and had to wait unnecessarily in the property.
The resident phoned the contractor on Saturday, 26 November 2022 to ask whether an operative could attend on that day. However, the contractor advised the resident that it could not attend and therefore a new appointment was made for 29 November 2022. It was inappropriate that the contractor had not agreed to attend during the weekend as the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend within 4 hours for out of hours emergency repairs. At the very least, the Ombudsman would expect the contractor to have offered temporary heating. The contractor’s decision not to attend meant the resident was without heating and hot water during the weekend, which was unreasonable given that she was known to have been pregnant and had medical conditions.
The contractor attended on 29 November 2022 but arrived late. The landlord’s records show that the operative attended after 8pm and there had been no prior notification given to the resident that he would arrive late. This was inappropriate as the resident again had been waiting in the property without heating and had needed to contact the landlord on various occasions to check whether the contractor would still attend.
The contractor established during the visit on 29 November 2022 that the condensate trap was blocked and would require a Gallo gun to clear the blockage. Although the landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 December 2022 and apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair, the landlord did not follow up the repair to ensure it was dealt with as an emergency. This was again inappropriate because, as mentioned previously, the loss of heating/hot water during winter should have been treated as an emergency given that the resident was pregnant and had medical conditions.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor provided a temporary fan heater to the resident on 10 December 2022. It was unreasonable that the resident had not been provided with temporary heating sooner as she had been without heating for approximately three weeks during the winter period even though she was known to be vulnerable.
The contractor later advised the landlord that the boiler had been left working following its visit on 29 November 2022. However, the evidence shows that the resident had emailed the landlord on various occasions shortly after 29 November 2022 to report the boiler problems.
The resident complained that the landlord had supplied a temporary fan heater rather than an oil filled radiator. The contractor explained that it had used up its stock of oil filled radiators and therefore had to provide an electric fan heater. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify the type of temporary heating the contractor should provide. Therefore, as there were no oil filled radiators available, it was reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s view, to provide a fan heater. Although it was not ideal due to the higher running costs, it nevertheless provided the resident with some form of heating.
The contractor attended the property on 12 December 2022 with the Gallo gun, however, the resident refused access because she had been expecting the contractor to install new parts to the boiler. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that it had incorrectly advised the resident that parts were needed for the boiler, instead of equipment in the form of the Gallo gun. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had given the resident incorrect information in its stage one reply. As a result, the resident was understandably concerned when the contractor had arrived on 12 December 2022 without parts for the boiler.
The contractor also accepted that the operative had attended on 12 December 2022 without an appointment. Although residents are expected to provide access without a pre-booked appointment for emergency repairs, in this case the contractor had to order the Gallo gun and therefore had ample opportunity to notify the resident of the visit in advance. It was therefore unreasonable that it had not done so.
The resident continued to chase the landlord regarding problems with the boiler and on 29 December 2022 the contractor attended with the Gallo gun. The engineer cleared the blockage in the boiler and the contractor’s notes stated that the boiler had been left in working order.
On 10 January 2023, the resident reported noises from the hot water taps in the kitchen and bathroom and on 12 January 2023 had found water on the kitchen floor and in the kitchen sink cupboard. The contractor spoke to the resident on 18 January 2023 but she was unable to confirm her availability due to pre-booked hospital appointments. The contractor later booked an appointment on 2 February 2023 and completed repairs to the boiler and to a leaking radiator. Based on the evidence seen, the landlord did not dispute that the problem with the taps was linked to the boiler issues.
The resident had therefore been without a consistent supply of heating and hot water from the boiler for approximately two and a half months until repairs were carried out on 2 February 2023. This was unacceptable as the resident was pregnant, had medical conditions and had contacted the landlord/contractor several times regarding the boiler. The Ombudsman’s view is that the period the resident was without heating/hot water was unreasonable despite the following mitigations:
1. The contractor had attended on 29 November 2022 and 29 December 2022 and carried out repairs.
2. The contractor had to order a specialist piece of equipment (the Gallo gun) to clear a blockage in the boiler.
3. The contractor had supplied temporary heating on 10 December 2022.
4. The resident was unavailable for a short period during January 2023 due to hospital appointments.
Overall, the landlord failed to address the problems with the boiler within a reasonable timescale given that the boiler had broken down during the winter period and the resident was known to have been pregnant and had medical conditions. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord did not treat the loss of heating/hot water with the urgency it merited. Furthermore, there were examples of missed appointments and operatives arriving without an appointment. The communication with the resident was also lacking and, as a consequence, the resident wrote to the landlord on several occasions to report her lack of heating/hot water.
The landlord’s communication failings also included not responding to the resident’s request for copies of the gas safety check records for 2021 and 2022. The resident advised this Service that she did not receive these records until 25 October 2023, which was inappropriate as landlords are required under the Gas Safety (installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to issue tenants with a copy of the latest gas safety check record within 28 days.
The landlord offered the resident a £30 fuel voucher and in its stage 2 reply it offered financial redress of £1,370. In calculating this sum, the landlord accepted that it should compensate the resident for a continuous 15-week period. This covered the period from 18 November 2022 when the resident first reported hearing noises from the boiler until 24 February 2023 when the bathroom and kitchen taps were replaced.
The landlord stated that it had offered compensation for the whole period due to a combination of “numerous visits booked” and uncertainty over the actual number of days the boiler was not working. The view of this Service is that it was right for the landlord to compensate the resident for the whole 15-week period as there was a lack of evidence to show that the boiler had been working for any meaningful length of time during the period.
The resident had clearly experienced distress, discomfort and inconvenience as a result of being without heating and hot water. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation to put things right after it had repaired the boiler. The amount offered included £100 towards extra electricity costs (plus a £30 fuel voucher). The resident had written on various occasions regarding the additional cost of running the fan heater and therefore this was clearly a concern for her.
In assessing whether the landlord’s offer was reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to the Government’s tables for average gas and electricity costs in 2021-2022. Based on this information from the Government’s website, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer of £100 plus the fuel voucher was a fair level of compensation for the additional electricity used to run the fan heater.
The landlord’s offer also included £420 for the loss of heating and hot water for 15 weeks at a rate of £4 per day. This was consistent with its compensation policy, which stated that it would use the standard rate of £2 per day specified in the Right to Repair Regulations 1994. As the resident did not have heating or hot water it was appropriate for the landlord to use a daily rate of £4 as per its compensation policy.
The total compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 reply was £1,320 (excluding the £50 for the complaint handling failure, which is considered later in this assessment). When there are failings by a landlord, as was the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
This Service has considered the amount of compensation offered by the landlord and has concluded that it was not proportionate to reflect the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation. This Service has therefore ordered additional compensation of £600, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to reflect the failings. In reaching its decision, the Ombudsman took into account the vulnerability of the resident and the impact that the loss of heating had on her over such a long period during the winter months.
The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord had offered a fairly large amount of compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. Had compensation of this level not been offered, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of severe maladministration due to the significant impact on the resident. However, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in this case in order to recognise that the landlord had made an attempt to put things right by offering compensation.
Although the landlord offered compensation in order to put things right, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord identified appropriate learning from its failings. The lack of learning from the outcomes of this case is covered later in this assessment under the landlord’s complaints handling.
In terms of the compensation already offered by the landlord, this Service understands that this was paid into the resident’s rent account to offset rent arrears, even though she had written to the landlord on 30 May 2023 to decline the offer of compensation. While this Service has not investigated whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance is clear that compensation should not be used to offset rent arrears where the resident has incurred additional ‘out of pocket’ expenses. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to transfer £100 of the compensation from the resident’s rent account to be paid directly to the resident for the additional electricity she used.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process: stage one complaints are replied to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet either of these timescales, it will write to the resident within a further 10 working days to explain why.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 6 December 2021 regarding the missing boiler cap. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 3 February 2022, which was 40 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore exceeded its advertised timescale for replying to stage one complaints and the delay was unreasonable. The resident was anxious to receive a response as stated in her email dated 17 December 2021 as she felt the contractor had failed in its duty of care.
The landlord did not apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, nor did it offer any other redress. This was inappropriate as the landlord resident had waited 2 months for a reply.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2022 and stated that the landlord had not addressed her concerns in its stage one reply. The landlord replied on 4 March 2022 and apologised for the delay in acknowledging her complaint. The landlord stated that this was due to it introducing a new approach to complaints handling. As part of the investigation, this Service has seen evidence that the landlord carried out a mini-review of its complaints policy during 2022 to take into account the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The Ombudsman therefore accepts that this may have impacted on the landlord’s complaint handling during this period.
The resident contacted the landlord during May to July 2022 to request a reply to her complaint and contacted the Ombudsman on 8 August 2022 as she had still not received a reply. This Service wrote to the landlord on 10 August 2022 requesting it to respond to the resident. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 8 September 2022, which was almost 7 months after she submitted her stage 2 reply. The delay was therefore excessive and inappropriate. The resident was concerned that the contractor had failed in its duty of care towards her and she wanted reassurance that the landlord had properly investigated her complaint.
The landlord apologised for the delays in replying at both stages of the complaints process and offered the resident £160 compensation. This was comprised of £30 for the stage one delay and £100 for the delay at stage 2. The landlord also offered an additional £30 for its service failure in dealing with the complaints.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy, which stated that a fixed sum of £10 was payable as compensation where the landlord had failed to respond to a formal complaint within the published timescales. Given the length of the delays, the Ombudsman would not have considered a fixed sum of £10 to be proportionate redress. However, the landlord’s offer of £160 has been considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and this sum is within the range of financial redress specified where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the sum offered was proportionate redress to reflect the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in chasing the landlord for a response to her complaints.
The resident submitted a new stage one complaint on 21 November 2022 regarding her report of the boiler breakdown. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 December 2022, which was 9 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore replied within its advertised timescale for stage one complaints.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 December 2022 and asked for complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 30 March 2023, which was almost 4 months after receiving the resident’s escalation request. During the intervening period there was contact between the landlord and the resident, including a home appointment during which the contractor repaired the boiler on 2 February 2023. However, the time taken for the landlord to send its stage 2 reply was nevertheless inappropriate as the resident was still experiencing problems with the boiler until 2 February 2023.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint. The sum offered is in the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure that may have led to inconvenience, time and trouble. In this case, the delay meant there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging its failings and offering redress to put things right. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account that the landlord and the contractor were in contact with the resident during the intervening period and had carried out repairs to the boiler on 2 February 2023. This Service therefore considers the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation for the delay in replying at stage 2 to be a proportionate and reasonable offer of redress.
The Ombudsman has, however, noted that the landlord did not use its complaints process to identify learning in relation to the loss of heating and hot water from November 2022. For example, the stage 2 reply did not identify any changes to its systems, processes or practices to avoid similar problems occurring in the future. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states: “Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents”. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling due to the lack of learning in relation to this case and has ordered additional compensation of £100.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the gas safety check and a missing cap from the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the error in relation to the missing boiler cap and offered the resident fair and proportionate compensation to put things right. The landlord arranged for the contractor to carry out additional training and for the matter to be discussed with the engineer in question. The landlord arranged for other jobs to be audited and offered the resident a meeting with its Gas Compliance Manager. Finally, the landlord fitted a CO alarm to provide additional reassurance to the resident.
Although the landlord acknowledged its failings in dealing with the lack of heating and hot water and offered compensation to put things right, the amount offered was not proportionate to reflect the level of detriment to the resident.
Although the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered the resident compensation to put things right in relation to the delays, it did not use the complaint process to learn from its failings.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £600 for the lack of heating and hot water.
3. Pay the resident £100 for its failure to use the complaint handling process to learn from the outcomes.
4. Transfer £100 of the compensation paid into the resident’s rent account and pay this directly to the resident for the additional electricity she used.