Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202010486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010486

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

31 August 2021

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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of works needed to the resident’s boiler.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.

Summary of events

The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 December 2020 and turned off the gas supply because it identified a leaking boiler flue there. A follow up appointment was carried out at the property on 6 December 2020, and it was decided that the boiler needed to be replaced.
On 8 December 2020, the landlord raised a work order for the “flue rectification works” at the property, and it noted that it discussed with the resident that it could not fit the new boiler in the same place. This was because there would not be sufficient space “to get the required fall back”, and it recorded that an electric boiler would not be a suitable option due to the insufficient electricity supply in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 December 2020 to lodge a stage one complaint, comprised of the following:
1. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that his initial boiler was “installed incorrectly and its flues do not follow safety standards” 12 years earlier.
2. He advised that, on 3 December 2020, an auditing company attended his property to assess the boiler and flues, which then deemed the system to be unsafe and decided to turn off the gas supply, leaving him without heating and hot water.
3. He reported that this was followed up by a visit by the landlord’s engineer, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with their competency and attitude, along with concerns regarding the fact that all properties within the building had the same heating system as his, and that these were left in an operational state.
4. He added that, on 15 December 2020, the landlord was due to commence works to his property to replace and relocate his heating system, however this was not done due to issues with the scaffolding.
5. He explained that these repair issues had, along with the lack of heating and hot water, impacted his mental health and day-to-day life.
6. He noted that he was offered electric heaters, but that he did not find these to be acceptable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 16 December 2020.
The landlord’s internal records state that it installed the boiler and exposed the boxing “for the flue run” at the resident’s property on 17 December 2020. This was followed up by two other appointments there, on 18 December 2020 to carry out electrical works so that the boiler would become functional, and on 21 December 2020 to build the cupboard that would conceal the boiler.
On 6 January 2021, the landlord issued the stage one complaint response, in which it:
1. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns with the conduct of its engineer, and confirmed that his feedback was escalated accordingly to their manager.
2. Advised that, following its investigation, it had decided to partially uphold the resident’s complaint.
3. Confirmed that a new boiler was fitted at the resident’s property on 18 December 2020, and that “all works were completed within [its] service level agreement”.
4. Acknowledged that the resident was without heating and hot water over a period of two weeks, during which he relied on family and friends for bathing facilities, and on fan heaters for heating.
5. As a resolution, it offered the resident £30 compensation for “time and trouble”, and a £58.24 reimbursement to cover the costs of the temporary fan heaters.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord fitted a thermostat at the property, and the resident emailed it to express his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response, and to note the following:
1. He would not accept its compensation offer because he found this to be insufficient.
2. He no longer felt “comfortable and safe” in his own home.
3. The new boiler was “fitted successfully”, however, he was unhappy with the fact that it was relocated to one of the bedrooms, which impacted the “aesthetics, dynamics and the sale value of [his] property”, and his mental health.
4. The landlord did not consult him in respect of the location of the new boiler.
5. He was unhappy with the quality and aspect of the cupboard built around the boiler, the pipework, and “the damage done to the flat”.
6. As a resolution, he wished for the landlord to either purchase his share of the property, “take over the sale” of the property with no costs to himself, or move the boiler to the initial position and consider a “much higher compensation offer”.
The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 20 April 2021, in which it:
1. Advised that the new boiler could not be fitted in the same place because it could not “achieve the correct fall back” due to space limitations, and the “only feasible solution was for the boiler to be relocated to the bedroom and a cupboard built around the appliance for aesthetic reasons and reduce noise levels”.
2. Acknowledged that the issue with the initial boiler should have been identified during an annual boiler service, which is why it decided to replace this, as a gesture of “good faith”.
3. Confirmed that the current location of the boiler was the most suitable option.
4. Advised that, following its investigation, it would not uphold his request for a review because it considered that it had taken sufficient action to deal with the initial boiler works. Therefore, the landlord would not be accommodating the resident’s request for it to purchase the property back from him.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021 to further express his dissatisfaction with its response to his complaint. Additionally, he noted that the first boiler was not located in the kitchen, the cupboard built around the new boiler did not improve the aesthetics nor did this reduce noise, and so he reiterated the above options that he would consider as a resolution to his complaint.
The resident contacted his local MP in respect of this case on 9 June 2021, who liaised with the landlord about this, and he then officially brought it to the attention of this Service on 15 June 2021. He complained to us that this had damaged his health and wellbeing, disputed its position that a replacement boiler could not have been fitted in the original boiler’s location, and explained that this was contrary to its contractor’s opinion at the time of the works and that he had not been presented with any options for this.
The resident also queried the landlord’s ability to alter his property’s layout without his input under the terms of the lease, asked whether his mortgage lender needed to be informed of this, and expressed dissatisfied with the reduced size of one of his bedrooms. He additionally questioned whether his was only property that had received such an alteration, how it had resolved all of the other boilers damaged by the flue system and if he could have access to a report with the results of all of the safety checks done to his entire building, including to determine whether his was the only boiler with such a fault.
The landlord emailed this Service on 1 July 2021, to advise that it had attended the property because of leaking and staining on the flue, which had then led to the capping off of the gas supply to the boiler. Furthermore, it noted that the resident’s property was leasehold, and that it would be the leaseholder’s, i.e. his, responsibility to carry out annual safety inspections of his gas boiler, including the entire length of the flue.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s lease

The lease terms state that the resident, as a leaseholder, is responsible for keeping the interior of the property, including all gas apparatus that are in and only used for his property, in good and substantial repair and condition.

The landlord’s compensation policy

The compensation policy includes awards for failure of service, time and trouble, poor complaint handling, reimbursement, or missed appointments. The awards are divided into three categories, based on the severity of the impact that the failure had on the resident, such as:
1. Low failure – these are instances where the landlord’s offer could start from an apology.
2. Medium failure – awards starting from £51.
3. High failure – awards starting from £151.
In cases where reimbursement is needed, the landlord’s compensation policy can cover costs of up to £300.

The landlord’s handling of works needed to the resident’s boiler

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the boiler issue has damaged his health and wellbeing. However, it is beyond the authority or expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a link between the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his boiler and his health in the way that a court or insurer might, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation. The resident has additionally queried the interpretation of his lease, and the requirements to inform his mortgage lender, but these matters are similarly outside of our authority or expertise and are therefore not addressed in this report.
It is also noted that the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the landlord allowed for the initial boiler and flue to be installed incorrectly 12 years earlier, which then led to the necessity of a replacement. However, this Service cannot determine this matter because we cannot investigate complaints about issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within six months of the matters arising, and he made his stage one complaint to it on 15 December 2020. Therefore, this investigation will focus on its handling of works that involved the replacement of the resident’s boiler.
Moreover, the resident’s requests for further information from the landlord about other properties, their boilers and his building fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office and not this Service, and so are outside the scope of this investigation.
The resident’s gas supply to his boiler was capped off on 3 December 2020, leaving him without heating or hot water until 18 December 2020, when the landlord completed the replacement of the boiler. In its stage one complaint response of 6 January 2021, it offered him compensation of £30 for his resulting time and trouble, and a £58.24 reimbursement for the electricity cost increase generated by the temporary heaters used during the above period.
The amounts offered complied with the landlord’s compensation policy, detailed above at paragraphs 17 to 18, regarding awards of compensation for a low-grade failure and reimbursement, respectively, which did not require it to increase these without further evidence of the costs that he had incurred. The fact that he and not it was responsible under the terms of his lease for keeping the gas apparatus in and only used for his property in good and substantial repair and condition also meant that it was not obliged to do so.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident during the 15 days that he was without a functional boiler. However, it is noted that he had a temporary heating alternative in the form of fan heaters, for which the landlord reimbursed his resulting costs, and that he relied upon family and friends for bathing facilities, for which it paid compensation, and it was open to him to provide it with further evidence of his costs from these to seek a higher level of compensation from it.
Furthermore, considering the extent of works required to the resident’s property, along with the fact that the landlord carried out an inspection on 6 December 2020, and attempted to commence the works on 15 December 2020, the period of 15 days for the reinstatement of heating and hot water supply was not unreasonable. This is because it supplied him with a new boiler, arranged scaffolding, and completed works at the property for this within that timescale.
It is also noted that the resident has expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the landlord decided to relocate the boiler in one of his bedrooms, which impacted the aesthetics and functionality of the room, as well as reportedly affecting his health and wellbeing. This Service appreciates his dissatisfaction with this. However, the landlord was permitted to rely upon the information provided by its qualified staff about this, and to make a decision based on that in the absence of expert evidence to the contrary.
The landlord’s records, dated 8 December 2020, stated that it tried exploring different avenues to provide alternatives to the relocation of the resident’s boiler at that time, such as by providing an electric boiler or by installing this in a different location, but that the current boiler installation was the only viable option. Therefore, it demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to consider his preference for it to install the new boiler in the location of the original boiler, but that it then took into account the viability of the solution offered that meant that it had to relocate this instead.
To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, based on the information provided to us, there were no failings by the landlord in its handling of repairs to his boiler. This is because it instructed the boiler audit on 3 December 2020, during which the fault was identified, carried out a further inspection on 6 December 2020, and replaced the boiler despite this being outside of its responsibility because he is a leaseholder. The landlord also offered the resident a reimbursement for the electricity bill cost increase caused by the fan heaters, and compensation for time and trouble, as he had to rely upon family and friends for bathing facilities.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of works needed to the resident’s boiler.

Reasons

The landlord replaced the resident’s boiler, despite this not being its responsibility, within a not unreasonable timeframe, and also compensated and reimbursed him for the period of 15 days during which he was without heating and hot water.

Recommendation

The landlord to re-offer the resident the £88.24 that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.