Melton Borough Council (202125091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125091

Melton Borough Council

January 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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. The delays to repair the resident’s front and back doors.
   2. The resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and his concerns about carbon monoxide emissions.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord a house. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities which are recorded for him on the landlord’s system.
3. In April 2019 the resident’s property was burgled which led to his front and back doors being broken. He reported this to the landlord, who sent an operative to inspect the doors on 17 July 2019. Following this, there were no further visits until 4 February 2020, when its operative attended his property and organised a new door to be fitted on 19 February 2020. It is unclear when the door was installed. However, the repair was confirmed to be completed by 3 March 2020.
4. The resident’s boiler was serviced, and found to be safe to use on 4 September 2019. It was subsequently replaced in July 2020, which the landlord said was because it was 14 years old. The resident reported that the boiler was condemned, and had been emitting carbon monoxide, which had affected his health and exacerbated his psychosis. The boiler was subsequently inspected and found safe to use on 13 July 2020, 12 May 2021, and 25 March 2022.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 February 2022. He expressed his dissatisfaction that the repair to his door was delayed, and also reported that he believed to have suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a faulty boiler. This complaint was not logged as a formal complaint because the issues had not been previously raised to the repairs department. He subsequently complained to this Service on 29 March 2022, as he had not received a response from it. This Service contacted it on the same day, and requested it provide a response. It logged this request as the stage one complaint.
6. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 26 April 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the delay to replace his front and back doors, and apologised for this delay and the resulting disruption it caused him. It offered the resident an inconvenience payment of £455, as compensation for this. It did not uphold his complaint regarding the safety of his boiler, on the basis that it held no record that the boiler had failed. The boiler had been regularly serviced and found to be safe, and it had received no previous reports from him about potential carbon monoxide issues.
7. The resident then requested to escalate the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 28 April 2022, as he reported to have further evidence; he then refused to provide this to the landlord. Its response of 9 June 2022 maintained its previous position, but stated it was willing to consider any additional information that was provided to it.
8. The resident confirmed he wanted this Service to review the case on 16 June 2022, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final stage complaint response, and reported he was not given an opportunity to share the evidence he had with the landlord. He reported to this Service that it was hiding the fact his boiler had been condemned, and emitted carbon monoxide. He sought increased compensation for the effects the reported carbon monoxide poisoning had on his health, and clarification on why his door took longer than eight weeks to replace.
9. Following the duly-made date (the date that a complaint has been referred to the Ombudsman, exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints proceedings and the Ombudsman has obtained evidence that the complaint is within its jurisdiction) of the resident’s complaint, the resident has raised concerns to this Service regarding the carbon monoxide detector at his property, regarding its location and that it is battery-powered. He has expressed to this Service that he wishes it to investigate the carbon monoxide detectors at all of its properties.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. As per paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has discretion to not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within six months of the matter arising. In this case, the matters were not brought to the landlord within this timeframe, however, as it considered the complaint, and in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities, his complaint will be considered. It is to be noted that, because the matters occurred up to four years ago, evidence is limited.
11. It is noted that the resident has stated he considers he had experienced carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of a faulty boiler, and this has exacerbated his mental health conditions. This Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. Therefore, this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
12. It at the Ombudsman’s discretion to consider events after the date that the case was duly made, if it is relevant to the complaint. There is no evidence to show the resident raised his concerns regarding his carbon monoxide meters to the landlord, and it therefore has not had the opportunity to respond to this. However, these concerns should be addressed by it to prevent further distress. It is therefore recommended below that the landlord ensure the resident’s carbon monoxide detector meets the requirements of current regulations.

The delays to repair the resident’s front and back doors.

13. The resident’s complaint was about the historical issue of the replacement of his front and back doors. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as this Service, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
14. As per the resident’s handbook, an emergency repair should be responded to within 24 hours, and this includes when there is an insecure property. It also outlines that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days. When the resident raised his complaint, he reported he had to remain within his property as it was not secure. Due to the lack of evidence, it is not known whether this was reported to the landlord at the time. However, the repair should have been completed within a maximum of 28 days. Instead, it was 316 calendar days from the time it first learned of the broken door on 19 April 2019 to the date it was confirmed to be completed on 3 March 2020, which was a failure in its service.
15. It was reasonable that the landlord’s stage one complaint response acknowledged the delay in replacing the resident’s doors, and offered him a formal apology for this and the resulting disruption it caused him. Furthermore, it was appropriate that it offered him an inconvenience payment of £455 as compensation, calculated as a percentage reduction of rent for the time period. This was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.
16. This apology and offer of compensation therefore amounted to reasonable redress for its above failings in the circumstances, as this was proportionate to recognise the inconvenience experienced by him.

The resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and his concerns about carbon monoxide emissions

17. The landlord has a legal obligation under Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to ensure that the gas supply and appliances in a property:
    1. are in a safe condition
    2. are fitted or repaired by a Gas Safe registered engineer
    3. Have a gas safety check every 12 months by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
18. The landlord has provided evidence to show that an annual gas safety check was carried out on 4 September 2019, 13 July 2020, 12 May 2021 and 25 March 2022.
19. The resident’s reports that his boiler was condemned and emitting carbon monoxide are concerning. However, his concerns were not raised to the landlord while the old boiler was in place. This means it did not have the opportunity to address these concerns at the time. It was reasonable that following his reports in February 2022, a gas safety check was performed by it on 25 March 2022, and this was a suitable step taken by the landlord to ensure his safety, and address any ongoing concerns.
20. It was reasonable that the landlord explained in its stage one complaint response that, prior to the new boiler being installed, there had been no issues reported during the service that was conducted on 4 September 2019, and that it had no record of the boiler being condemned. It further explained that the boiler had been replaced as it was fourteen years old and this is the standard timeframe at which it replaces its boilers. This was appropriate, as it addressed his concerns that the boiler had been condemned, and it was reasonable of it to not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
21. In short, the landlord acted in accordance of its legal obligations in ensuring the safety of the resident, and acted appropriately in addressing his concerns during its complaints procedure.

The associated complaint

22. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction at the way a service was delivered, and a complaint can be raised by residents telling the operative they are dealing with that they wish to make a formal complaint. It further states complaints should be acknowledged within one working day. Stage one and two complaints should receive a response within fifteen working days. Furthermore, it states that any delays will be communicated to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
23. In accordance with this Service’s complaints handling code, landlords should issue stage one complaint responses within ten working days and stage two complaint responses within twenty working days. The landlord should therefore review its corporate complaints policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with this Service’s complaint handling code. It has also been ordered below to complete and publish a self-assessment as per part C section twoof this Service’s complaint handling code.
24. When the resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2022, he expressed he wished for a formal complaint to be raised, and it should have accepted this request, as per its corporate complaints policy. It was not appropriate that he was advised he could not make a formal complaint until he had made a complaint to the repairs service. Moreover, this was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code’s prohibition against obstructing access to the landlord’s complaints procedure, without a valid reason to do so, and a subsequent written explanation of this.
25. Furthermore, this request for a complaint was forwarded internally by the landlord, and an operative internally acknowledged the complaint and stated that they would respond to the resident accordingly. Internal correspondence explains that this email ‘got lost’ within the operatives workload, and was not actioned until this Service approached it. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain this to the resident as the cause for the delay in providing a stage one complaint response. However, it instead offered no explanation, and no apology, which was a failing in its service.
26. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to her on 26 April 2022, after it received a request to do so from this Service on 29 March 2022, which was 50 working days after his stage one complaint, and nineteen working days following its formal acceptance of the complaint. The landlord should have instead responded to the complaint promptly, and communicated any delays to and agreed any extensions with the resident, as requiredper its corporate complaints policy.
27. Following its stage one complaint response, the resident escalated his on 28 April 2022 during a phone call. While the complaint could have been acknowledged verbally on the phone by the landlord, it offered no written acknowledgement that his complaint had been escalated. It would have been appropriate for it to do this, as a formal acknowledgement, as per its corporate complaints policy.
28. The landlord’s final stage complaint response was issued on 9 June 2022, which was 27 working days after the complaint was originally escalated to the final stage of the complaints procedure by the resident, with no delay communicated by it to him. While he did not actively chase it for its response, this 27-working-day delay unnecessarily protracted resolution of his complaint, causing further time and trouble to him.
29. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord did not acknowledge its mistakes in raising and responding to the resident’s complaint and failed to offer an apology in both its stage one and final stage complaint response. It has therefore been ordered below to pay £100 compensation to the resident, in recognition for its failings to raise his complaint and respond within the required timescale. This amount of compensation is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggest an amount from £100 for a failing which has adversely affected the resident.
30. Moreover, it failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its customer feedback policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in her case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the delays to repair the resident’s front and back doors.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler and his concerns about carbon monoxide emissions.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

34. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay £100 to the resident in recognition for its failings to raise his complaint and respond within the required timescale.
    2. Complete and publish a self-assessment of this Service’s complaint handling code which can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.
35. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Ensure the resident’s carbon monoxide detector meets the requirements of current regulations.
    2. Review its corporate complaints policy, to ensure that it brings it in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its corporate complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in her case from occurring again in the future.
36. The landlord should write to this Service and confirm it has followed the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendation, within four weeks of the date of this report.