Peabody Trust (202233518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233518

Peabody Trust

1 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his request to replace the electric boiler system in the property with gas.

Background

  1. On or around 20 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested for it to replace the electric boiler system in his property with gas. A landlord’s internal email noted that it had installed the electric boiler “roughly 5-6 years ago” after the resident had “previously had some mental health issues where he ripped out his gas boiler”.
  2. The resident made his complaint to the landlord on 17 August 2022. He said that it had not provided him with a response to his requests for a gas boiler. He said that over the past few years he had been “consistently well” and had confirmation from his doctor that it was safe for him to have gas in his home. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of communication and the costs of running his home entirely on electricity.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. The landlord said that the resident’s current electric boiler system was fit for purpose, fully functioning and expected to last a further 10 years. It said it was unable to agree to install a gas boiler due to this. It claimed that a surveyor had previously visited and provided him with this decision verbally.
  4. On 26 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. On 26 June 2023, the landlord confirmed it had done so.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2023. It:
    1. Confirmed the findings of its stage 1 response.
    2. Said that the resident was able to ask permission to fit a gas boiler at his own cost.
    3. Its ‘wellbeing team’, who offered money and benefit advice, had attempted to contact the resident on 28 April 2023 but had not received a response.
    4. Offered to arrange for a ‘specialist team’ to contact the resident and provide advice on how to use the electric boiler most effectively and efficiently.
    5. Said that it would gather details for a comparison of costs between operating the electric boiler and a gas boiler. After reviewing this, it may offer further compensation.
    6. Offered the resident compensation totalling £500 for failings in its complaint handling.
  6. On 7 August 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had been unable to carry out a costs comparison as it had discovered he was using oil filled radiators, rather than the electric boiler, to heat his home. However, it said it had been unable to find any records of it communicating its position on installing a gas boiler with him prior to its stage 1 response. Due to this it offered the resident a further £250 compensation.
  7. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation on 25 August 2023. He told it he would still be referring his complaint to the Ombudsman as he felt the costs and inconvenience of the electric boiler system were unsustainable and discriminatory.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. At the time of complaint, the landlord’s policy said that it would not accept complaints about matters arising over 6 months ago. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at that time.
  2. Accordingly, and in keeping with the landlord’s complaint responses, this investigation will not assess the landlord’s original decision to install the electric boiler. Nor will it examine its response to the resident’s earlier requests for a gas boiler to be installed – which date back to at least 2021.
  3. The resident has alleged that the landlord’s response to his requests is discriminatory. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord has been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident, as that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord’s response was reasonable, fair, and in keeping with its policies.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It made an offer of £500 compensation for these. In his reply to the landlord’s stage 2 response, and when bringing his case to the Ombudsman, the resident did not express any dissatisfaction with this remedy. Due to this, this investigation will not assess the landlord’s complaint handling.

Request to replace boiler

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on or around 20 April 2022 and requested for it to replace the electric boiler with a gas one. In an internal email of 30 May 2022, the landlord noted that the resident was “getting a bit upset at the time it is taking to find a resolution”. It said that “he is currently paying more than he can afford for his electricity as a result of having an electric boiler instead of a gas boiler”.
  2. Despite this, the landlord has not supplied any evidence that it contacted the resident and provided its position on replacing the boiler prior to him raising his complaint on 17 August 2022.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that it was unable to agree to change the resident’s boiler. It said that the current electric boiler was “fit for purpose” and “fully functioning”.
  4. This was a reasonable position. As a provider of social housing, the landlord has a responsibility to manage its budgets effectively. Its repairs policy says that its approach to repairs should “provide value for money”, meaning gaining maximum benefit from its expenditure. Replacing a fully functioning boiler, which it expected to last for the next 10 years would not be in keeping with these responsibilities.
  5. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will “keep in good repair and proper working order” any installations for space heating and hot water. There is no evidence of any fault or repair issue with the electric boiler and so the landlord cannot be said to be in breach of this clause. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably explained that it would only look to replace a boiler when it was “beyond repair”.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed, however, to respond to the resident’s concerns about the costs of running the electric boiler. In his complaint the resident said that the costs were “impacting my welfare and quality of life and causing me great anxiety about how I am going to afford to feed myself and stay warm during the winter months”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to such concerns at the earliest opportunity, even before issuing its stage 1 response. This would include offering the resident support either internally or by signposting to external organisations.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did state that it had referred the resident to its ‘wellbeing team’ to provide him with advice. However, its internal emails indicate that the resident referred himself to the wellbeing team in an email of 26 April 2023. The Ombudsman notes that the wellbeing team contacted the resident on 28 April 2023; however, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident responded at that time and engaged with the offer of support.
  8. The landlord did make a reasonable offer to arrange for a ‘specialist team’ to provide the resident advice on how to use the electric boiler most efficiently and effectively. It also advised the resident that he could seek permission to install a gas boiler at his own expense but acknowledged that this may not be a viable option due to the financial concerns he had raised.
  9. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would carry out a review of the resident’s heating costs to consider reimbursing him for the increased costs of the electric boiler. It is unclear why the landlord committed to this when any increased costs were not due to any failing on its part. If this was deemed to be a ‘goodwill gesture’ it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make this clear and manage the resident’s expectations.
  10. The landlord did not offer any reimbursement of heating costs to the resident following this review. It said it had been unable to calculate his heating costs due to the fact he had been using oil filled radiators rather than the electric boiler. This was reasonable as the oil filled radiators had not been provided by the landlord and so it was not responsible for any increase in heating costs due to their use.
  11. However, it did identify that it had no record of providing him with its position on replacing the boiler prior to its stage 1 response – despite the stage 2 response claiming that it had. Due to this, it offered him £250 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  12. In summary, the landlord’s position that it would not replace the resident’s electric boiler with a gas one was reasonable and in keeping with its repairs policy. Although the landlord failed to appropriately communicate its position to the resident prior to its stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged this and offered compensation for it. However, the landlord failed to offer timely support to the resident, who had made it clear he was experiencing financial difficulties due to his utility bills. This meant it missed the opportunity to support the resident during the winter of 2022, when his bills would have been at their highest. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure on this basis.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the electric boiler system in the property with gas.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure identified by this report.
    2. Have its wellbeing team contact the resident and offer to provide him with support and advice regarding his utility bill costs.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the current energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property has a rating of F. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews the improvements recommended within the EPC to assess whether it can undertake any of these to increase the property’s energy efficiency.
  2. The landlord should inform this Service of its intentions towards this recommendation.