Oxford City Council (202220478)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220478

Oxford City Council

24 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to reports of damp and mould.
    2. response to reports about a loss of heating and hot water.
    3. complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  3. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident stated there was damp and mould in her property. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not raise this aspect in her initial complaint to the landlord nor in the escalation request.
  4. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord issued a stage 1 response relating to a leak and damp and mould in January 2024. As this aspect of this complaint does not appear to have concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure, this report will not seek to investigate this matter. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made before having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a flat. She lives with her young child. The resident has an electric heating system.
  2. On 10 October 2022 the resident reported having no hot water in her property. The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 October 2022 and reset the ‘top thermal element’. They also found that the bottom immersion element had blown and changed this on 13 October 2022. The same day the resident reported that she still had no heating or hot water. When the landlord’s contractor returned the resident was not home and they left a card for her to make contact.
  3. On 17 and 24 October 2002 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In summary, she was unhappy that the engineer was unable to fix the issue on 12 October 2022. She stated that she had to take another day off work for the following day and that the matter remained unresolved. She stated that nobody had returned to fix the issue and that she had been without heating or hot water for 15 days. She added that she had lost earnings and was unable to bathe herself or her child. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to fix the heating as soon as possible and compensation for her loss of earnings.
  4. On 25 October 2022 the landlord’s gas contractor attended the property and advised that as there was no gas boiler an electrician would be needed. On 26 October 2022 the resident made another report of no hot water or heating. The landlord’s contractor called the resident the same day and she informed them that she had an appointment arranged for 28 October 2022. On 27 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property but the resident was not in. On 2 December 2022 the resident reported only having enough heating and hot water for a shower. The landlord attended on 6 December 2022 and reset the storage heaters and elements and found them to be working properly. It advised the resident to contact her energy supplier suggesting that there may be an issue with her meter.
  5. On 13 February 2023 following contact from the resident this Service asked the landlord to formally respond to her complaint by 6 March 2023. On 28 March 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It provided a timeline of events up to 6 December 2022 and stated that it had attended to all reports of repairs, however, was not always able to gain access. It added that it had not received any further reports from the resident about issues with a loss of heating or hot water.
  6. On 17 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response. She said she had no hot water or heating for 9 weeks, from 6 October 2022. She added that she had to purchase an oil heater to keep her and her family warm and that she had to go to laundrettes and hotels when the temperature dropped. She felt that the electricians who had attended had ‘fobbed’ her off and that living in those conditions affected the health of the household. Further, she stated that she had lost income due to having to take time off to be home for appointments. In response, the landlord informed the resident that she would receive its stage 2 response within 20 working days by 16 May 2023.
  7. In June and July 2023, following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. On 27 July 2023 following no response from the landlord, this Service accepted this case for investigation. On 2 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It repeated the timeline of events and said that it had acted appropriately in attempting to resolve the issues reported. In addition, it acknowledged its failure in responding to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timeframe.

Assessment and findings

Reports about a loss of heating and hot water

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1.    Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2.    Put things right.
    3.    Learn from outcomes. 
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to attend to a loss of heating and hot water within 3 days and classifies this as an urgent repair. It states that from November to April it would treat such a repair as an emergency and attend within 24 hours.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that in the resident’s escalation request, she said that she reported a loss of heating and hot water on 6 October 2022, however, there is no evidence to reconcile this. The first report this Service has seen was made on 10 October 2022. Following this report the landlord acted reasonably by attending within its policy timescales to try and repair the issue. It also acted promptly by attending to the follow-up repair the next day. The landlord again acted within its policy timescales by attending to the resident’s further report the same day but the resident was not home. While it was appropriate for the contractor to leave a card for the resident to make contact, it is concerning that the landlord did not follow this up with the resident given that this was an urgent repair and a young child was living in the property.
  5. Furthermore, when the resident reported having no heating or hot water again on 24 October 2022 the landlord’s gas contractor attended the next day. However, they were unable to assist as there was no gas boiler. They subsequently informed the landlord that an electrician would be needed. This would suggest that the landlord failed to instruct the correct contractor despite the fact the resident had reported the issue and it had attended the property previously. While this was a minor failing on the part of the landlord, it acted promptly to rectify the situation by instructing the correct contractor to attend on 26 October 2022.
  6. Before attending the property, the contractor called the resident to arrange a suitable appointment. The landlord’s records showed that the resident informed the contractor that she was at work and that an appointment had been made for Friday 28 October 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response appeared to reconcile this. It said that the contractor had attended the property on Friday 27 October 2022. However, this appeared to be a mistake as 28 October 2022 was a Friday. As the contractor was unable to gain access, likely having attended on Thursday 27 October 2022, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on the incorrect date. While its records indicated that it emailed the resident that day to rebook the appointment, its failure to attend on the agreed Friday was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
  7. Having not heard anything more from the resident in respect of this issue, on 2 December 2022 the landlord contacted the resident for an update. This was a proactive approach from the landlord that demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s complaint and the possible implications on her family of having no hot water or heating during the winter months. In response, the resident advised that she only had enough hot water for a shower. While both resident and landlord had agreed an appointment for 6 December 2022, 4 days later, the landlord’s records showed that it acted appropriately by raising the report as an emergency repair. The landlord’s records suggest that it resolved the issue on this date.
  8. Overall the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water within its policy timescales. However, the landlord made mistakes that would have likely delayed getting matters resolved for the resident. It sent the wrong contractor and appeared to turn up on the wrong date. Furthermore, it failed to identify these mistakes and acknowledge these errors in its formal responses. While the failures identified in this report may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, they would have caused a loss of confidence in the landlord and likely left the resident feeling distressed and frustrated. This amounts to service failure and orders are made below for remedy.
  9. The resident said she had lost earnings as a result of taking days off work to accommodate scheduled appointments. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, as outlined above.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will normally respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) states that a landlord’s response must use clear, plain language and adds that landlords must include details on how to escalate a complaint to stage 2 if the resident is unhappy with its response.
  2. The resident first raised her complaint on 17 October 2022, however, the landlord failed to formally respond. This led to her contacting this Service for assistance. The landlord finally responded to the complaint on 28 March 2023, over 5 months later. This was a considerable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was ignoring her concerns. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge this delay or provide any redress to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
  3. In addition, its stage 1 response was poor. It provided a timeline that simply copied its repair records which contained information such as jargon and operatives’ names. This was inappropriate. It failed to use clear and plain language as outlined in ‘The Code’. Moreover, it failed to inform the resident how she could escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she was unhappy with its response. It only did so over 2 weeks later when it recognised its error. These were further failures on the part of the landlord.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged this promptly and informed her that it would respond at stage 2 by 16 May 2023, however, it failed to do so. This led to the resident again asking this Service for assistance. This service had to chase the landlord on 3 occasions which led to the Ombudsman issuing a complaint handling failure order for its failure to respond to her complaint. The landlord finally issued its stage 2 final response on 2 August 2023, over 3 months after the resident’s escalation request. This was another considerable delay that would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its policy timescales and it took the resident over 9 months to complete its complaints process. While the landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 2 response it did not offer any redress to ‘put things right’. In addition, it failed to acknowledge the entirety of the delays or identify any learning from the complaint. This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below in line with this Service’s guidance, which suggests a compensation from £100 for failures that adversely effected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to reports about a loss of heating and hot water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 comprised of:
      1. £100 for the distress and frustration caused by its response to reports about a loss of heating and hot water.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what actions have been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should continue to engage with the resident about any ongoing complaints about damp and mould in the property.