Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202203723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203723

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

21 October 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 concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following a boiler outage in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident has said that he contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 to report a fault with the boiler. The landlord’s repair records state that an appointment was arranged for 7 February 2022. The engineer who attended recommended that the boiler be replaced due to its age and condition. An emergency repair was raised to install a new boiler by the landlord.
4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2021 and requested to raise a complaint into how the issue was being handled. He described the elements of his complaint as:
   1. He was informed by the engineer who inspected the boiler on 7 February 2022 that it needed to be replaced and that it would be “sorted by the end of the week”.

Due to the lack of heating and hot water, his family stayed in temporary accommodation between 8 and 13 February 2021. He then called the landlord to request and update on 14 and 18 February 2021, but was unable to get any information on when the new boiler would be installed.

2. He had bought two electric heaters which had resulted in an increase in energy usage.

As of 21 February 2021, the property was still without hot water and heating.

5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive compensation for the delay in replacing the boiler and the inconvenience that this had caused. The resident also requested to be reimbursed the expenses accrued in moving his family into temporary accommodation and heating the property.
6. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Confirmed that the new boiler was installed on 4 March 2021.

Acknowledged that the work to replace the boiler was not done in a timely manner and the resident experienced a poor level of service when contacting it requesting updates.

2. Apologised to the resident and offered £200 compensation, which it broke down as £100 for its service failure and £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.

Noted that during a telephone conversation about the complaint, it was informed by the resident that his family had struggled financially during the period they were waiting for the boiler to be replaced. The landlord informed the resident that it had asked a manager to contact him to discuss what advice and support it could offer.

7. Following further correspondence at the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2022 with a revised compensation offer. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation, which it broke down as £150 for not replacing the boiler in a timely manner and its poor communication, £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident, and £50 for not providing the stage one response within its published timescale of ten working days.
8. The landlord also informed the resident that it would not normally consider compensation for expenses for moving into temporary accommodation if it had not agreed with the resident to cover these prior to the move. However, in light of the resident’s circumstances, the landlord agreed to cover the resident’s expenses for the temporary move and for heating the property. The landlord asked him to provide it with evidence such as receipts or invoice to calculate reimbursement, and noted that if the resident no longer had this evidence, it would be willing to offer a discretionary payment of £300 towards the costs.
9. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as the landlord’s compensation offer was not sufficient in light of the poor level of service he experienced, and the stress and inconvenience that this caused him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

10. Section 2.4 of the tenancy agreement relates to the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord will “maintain any installations that it provides for space heating, water heating, sanitation and supplying water, gas and electricity. If the heating system breaks down, we do not have to give you extra heating equipment during the period of repair”.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (complete within 24 hours) and “Routine” (complete within 28 calendar days). An emergency repair is defined by the landlord as a repair that presents “immediate danger to one’s health and safety; a risk to the residents’ or others’ safety or property; serious damage to the residents’ home or adjacent buildings”. The policy notes that total loss of heating is considered an emergency repair and states that “If replacement parts need to be sourced, ordered and fitted, however the repair may take a further seven days”.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering discretionary compensation in circumstances of “poor complaint handling, delays in providing our services such as repairs, failure to provide a service that we have charged for, temporary loss of amenity(ies) and failure to meet our target response times, such as missing a repair appointment”. The policy also states that the landlord will consider a quantifiable loss payment in circumstances where a complainant has accrued expenses as a result of its service failure.
13. The landlord categorises its compensation payment tariffs as low (up to £50), medium (£51 to £150) and high (£151-£250).  The medium tariff is defined as “considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the policy suggests:
    1. “A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

Failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments.”

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a boiler outage in the property

14. Once it was informed by the resident of the issue with the boiler, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s report. It arranged an appointment for the boiler to be inspected and, on the advice of the engineer, raised an emergency work order to replace the boiler. However, the landlord recognised that there were failures in how it handled the boiler replacement. It accepted that there was poor communication and delays in completing the work. This resulted in the resident making the decision to move his family into temporary accommodation for a period, while he remained in the property for work reasons and used temporary heating.
15. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by ensuring the new boiler was installed, offering £350 compensation and agreeing to reimburse the resident’s expenses. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication. The landlord’s records show that once the complaint was raised, the complaint handler assigned to the case acted as the resident’s point-of-contact, chased up the status of the boiler replacement with the landlord’s repairs team and its contractor, and provided regular updates to the resident on the progress of the repair.
17. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the stage one response delay (sent four working days outside of its published timescale of ten working days) at its low tariff, and two £150 payments for its service failures in replacing the boiler and the for the inconvenience that this had caused the resident at its medium tariff. The total compensation offer of £350 was also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment of £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration which adversely affected the complainant, but there was no permanent impact.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord initially not to consider covering the resident’s expenses as no agreement had been made for it to do this prior to the resident’s family moving out of the property and the engineer’s notes on 7 February 2022 had stated that the boiler had not been isolated and was still providing some heating to the property but no hot water. However, in light of the resident’s circumstances, it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to use its discretion and offer a quantifiable loss payment after the fact. If it was not possible for the resident to provide evidence of his expenses, the landlord stated it would offer a further compensation payment of £300 towards the expenses. This figure was based on the approximate expenses accrued described by the resident in his correspondence with the landlord and is reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the level of compensation offered following a boiler outage in the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

20. As the finding of reasonable redress is based on the compensation offer from the landlord, it is recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already, pay the £350 it offered to the resident and calculate what further compensation it will offer for the resident’s expenses and also pay this amount. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.