Milton Keynes City Council (202221333)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202221333
Milton Keynes City Council
31 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about electrical safety and damage to her cooker.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident lives in a two-bed bungalow under a secure tenancy which began on 29 September 2014.
- The landlord’s evidence submission stated that it did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident. The resident has a visual impairment and suffered a heart attack during the course of this complaint.
- The resident raised a complaint on 7 November 2022 in which she said:
- There was a “dangerous electrical fault” in her kitchen which was identified 2 days earlier by an emergency electrician.
- The wiring fault caused her cooker to stop working.
- The electrician had said that the fault was caused by the wiring being too thin.
- The landlord installed the cooker when she moved into the property.
- The landlord attended the following day to investigate the sockets and remove “illegal wiring”. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 December 2022 in which it said:
- Its contractor’s electrical manager had reviewed photographs and spoken to the operatives who attended the resident’s property. He had concluded that the fault was a loose live or neutral conductor within the cooker itself.
- The property had an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) completed on 28 March 2021 which was satisfactory and did not indicate any faults with the kitchen or cooker circuits.
- It had sourced a new cooker for the resident via the Foodbank, but the resident had declined this.
- It apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
- The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2023. She said:
- The wiring was illegal, and the wire used was not thick enough for the load. She also noted that the earth wire was a separate cable.
- Any loose wiring at the connection point within the cooker would also be the landlord’s responsibility, given that it installed the cooker when she moved into the property.
- The landlord had moved the cooker on three previous occasions to repair a gas pipe behind the cooker. During these movements, the landlord’s contractors should have noted any faults and remedied them.
- She could not accept the cooker offered by the landlord as it had an electric hob. Due to the resident’s visual impairment, she felt this would be unsafe as she would not be able to see when the hob was switched on.
- The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 26 April 2023. The landlord did not permit an escalation as it said it had previously addressed the resident’s complaint and that she had not provided any new evidence.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 April 2023 seeking a like-for-like cooker replacement and compensation for the period of time she has been without a cooker.
Assessment and findings
Electrical safety and damage to the resident’s cooker
- The resident noted that her cooker stopped working on 5 November 2022 and called the landlord’s emergency repairs line. An electrician attended the same day and noted that the switch on the wall, for the cooker had “burnt out” and requested a follow up attendance. This initial appointment was undertaken within a reasonable time.
- The resident raised her complaint on 7 November 2022 and the follow up appointment took place the following day. During the appointment a socket was changed and “illegal wiring” was removed. As the resident wanted the socket left operational, the cooker outlet was disconnected as this used the same socket.
- The landlord raised a works order for a further EICR on receipt of the resident’s complaint and this inspection was completed on 16 November 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that it believed that part of the wiring behind the cooker had been undertaken by the resident’s former partner. The landlord did not provide any basis for this assertion. During the EICR visit the landlord removed the “DIY wiring” in the kitchen and completed other electrical works not connected to this complaint. The EICR noted that the electrics were satisfactory.
- The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a timely way and made the electrics safe. It is not possible for this Service to determine who installed the “illegal” or “DIY” electrics, nor whether it was this or another factor which caused damage to the resident’s cooker.
- The landlord took advice from its contractor’s electrical manager on 8 December 2022, based on the accounts of the contractor’s operatives and photographs of the resident’s property. The manager said:
- The arcing of electricity was found within the cooker itself.
- He noted the “illegal wiring” however “this would not have interfered with the cooker directly and would not be the cause for the arcing within the cooker.”
- The most recent EICR on 28 March 2021 did not note any deviations or safety concerns.
- He believed the cause of the issue was the cooker was over 8 years old. He noted that wiring can come loose over time with normal use.
- The Ombudsman has reviewed the findings of the EICRs undertaken in the property, along with periodic Minor Electrical Installation Works Certificates (MEIWC) following electrical works in the property and can find no record of pre-existing faults.
- The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional view of its contractors and therefore, in combination with attending quickly to the resident’s reports, there has been no maladministration in its handling of this element of the complaint.
- The resident said, in her formal complaint, that the landlord had installed the cooker that she had purchased when she moved into the property. She said that the cooker was new at this time. The landlord’s records conflict with this and show no record of installing the cooker. Correspondence between the landlord and its contractor indicate that it does not install resident-supplied cookers and there were no records that it did on this occasion. The Ombudsman is not able to determine who installed the cooker based on this conflicting evidence.
- Given the 8 year timeframe that has elapsed in the interim, it would be difficult to conclude any form of liability arising from the installation, particularly given the resident noted that the cooker had been pulled out on several occasions for other works.
- Additionally, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to source an alternative cooker via the local Foodbank and had arranged for this to be delivered and installed at their cost. The evidence shows that the resident declined this, as she felt that an electric hob would not be safe due to her visual impairment, as she would not be able to see when the hob was turned on.
- While it is unfortunate that the cooker offered was not suitable, this offer was beyond the legal requirements of the landlord and was an example of good practice. Given that the original cooker was the resident’s property, the landlord had no legal responsibility to maintain, service or replace this appliance.
- The landlord is recommended to continue supporting the resident with accessing a suitable appliance from the Foodbank or other similar sources if possible.
Complaint handling
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
- Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
- Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
- Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
- At the time of investigation and during the complaint, the landlord operated a two-stage complaint process in which it commits to responding to complaints within 20 working days at both stages. This is not compliant with the Code in force at the time of this complaint as it delays residents being able to escalate their complaints internally and to the Ombudsman.
- Additionally, the evidence in this case shows that the landlord issued its complaint responses over its policy timescales at both stages. Its stage 1 complaint response was issued after 37 working days and its stage 2 response after 27 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response, but no further redress was offered, nor was the delay acknowledged at stage 2.
- Overall, given the delay in issuing the complaint responses and noting the landlord’s policy timescale at stage 1 in in excess of the Code requirements, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
- No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about electrical safety and damage to her cooker.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this determination.
- Pay the resident £50 compensation for the delays in issuing its complaint responses. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account unless she requests this.
Recommendations
- The landlord should continue to support the resident with accessing a suitable replacement cooker from the Foodbank or other similar sources if possible.