Raven Housing Trust Limited (202312041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312041

Raven Housing Trust Limited

14 October 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:
1. Issues with the heating system and associated works.
2. Rodents in the property.
3. External rendering work.
This investigation also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 3-bed house, since October 2009. Her 3 children live with her.
The landlord’s records do not show that the resident or her household have any vulnerabilities.
On 14 March 2023 the resident reported that her boiler was not working, and she had no heating. The landlord raised an urgent repair for its contractor to attend.
The resident called the landlord on 22 March 2023. She said she wanted to raise a complaint as she had been without heating for 8 days and the contractor had not attended.
The contractor attended on 28 March 2023. It found a fault with the boiler and recorded that it was unsafe to use. It therefore advised the landlord to replace the boiler.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 April 2023. It said it understood that the complaint was about:
1. Its contractor not attending following her report that the boiler was not working until 28 March 2023.
2. Why it needed to install a new boiler when it had only recently installed the current one.
3. The hot water pressure in the bathroom being “very low”. The resident had advised that she had to turn the electric shower on to fill the bath.
4. The radiator in the main bedroom not being sufficient. The resident was concerned that the main bedroom was cold.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It said:
1. It apologised that its contractor had not attended until 28 March 2023. This was due to an “IT error” which caused her repair to not appear on the contractor’s system. It had resolved the IT issue.
2. It installed the existing boiler in 2011. The contractor had found faults that made the boiler “uneconomical” to repair. It was therefore appropriate to replace the boiler.
3. The existing system was a “heat only” design and this was causing the low water pressure. It would therefore install a combination boiler instead.
4. It would investigate the efficiency of the bedroom radiator when it installed the combination boiler.
5. It upheld the complaint and offered £200 compensation:
  1. £50 for the delay in attending and “poor communication”.
  2. £150 for lack of heating.
The landlord replaced the boiler on 19 April 2023. It completed the associated electrical works completed on 23 April 2023.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 28 April and said she was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response, and she felt “short changed”. She said she had been asking it to install a combination boiler since 2011 due to poor water pressure and the property being cold. The resident said she had spent a lot of money due to the issues with the boiler and that the issue had also affected her mental health.
On 3 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said that contractors had damaged a pair of designer shoes during the works to replace the boiler.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2023. It said:
1. It had responded to all aspects of the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
2. She had raised 2 further issues in her stage 2 escalation:
  1. Outstanding works following the boiler installation.
  2. Damage to trainers.
3. It asked her to:
  1. Explain what works were outstanding so it could arrange to complete them.
  2. Provide receipts for the trainers so that it could consider compensation.
The resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her complaint to this Service. She said she was unhappy because:
1. She felt the landlord should have replaced her boiler with a combination boiler in 2012 when she first raised issued about water pressure.
2. Had it done so her bills would have been “significantly less”.
3. She had a rodent infestation in her loft.
4. It had not completed rendering work to the outside of the property.

The legal and policy framework

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Its definition of an emergency repair includes complete loss of heating where no alternative source is available.
The repairs guide says the landlord will complete routine repairs within 28 days. This includes loss of heating where alternative sources are available.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
  1. Rodents in the property.
  2. External rendering work.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
We accept that the resident has reported concerns about rodents and external rendering work to the landlord through its repairs reporting system. We have not however seen evidence that she asked the landlord to raise a complaint in relation to its handling of these issues. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord did not consider the issues within its complaints process when it should reasonably have done so.
While we empathise with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, this investigation will only consider the issues raised during the landlord’s complaint process. This is because the landlord should have the opportunity to fully investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns.
If the resident is still dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns about rodents and external rendering, she should address this directly with the landlord. She can progress through its formal complaint process if needed. If the resident remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may refer the matter back to Ombudsman as a new complaint.

Scope of the investigation

We acknowledge that the resident has said within communications with this Service and with the landlord that she has been reporting issues with her heating system for several years.
The resident’s comments are not disputed. However, except for her report of no heating in March 2023 we have seen no evidence of reports about issues with the heating system from the resident within 12 months of the date of her complaint. This investigation has therefore focussed on the landlord’s handling of events from March 2023 onwards.

Issues with the heating system and associated works.

The resident reported that her boiler was not working and that she had no heating on 14 March 2023. While the evidence shows that the landlord sent the repair job to its contractor at the time, the contractor did not attend until 2 weeks later following contact by the resident. The evidence also shows that that despite the resident making the landlord aware of the delay, it took the contractor a further 6 days to attend.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend within 24 hours when a resident has no heating and no alternative source of heat. It failed to adhere to this timescale in this case and this was inappropriate.
On 29 March 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and was described as “livid” that she had been without heating for “over a month”. She asked why the boiler needed to be replaced again when it had only recently been installed. The resident said that prior to the boiler breaking down her energy bills has been “through the roof” and that the house had been cold. She asked the landlord to provide temporary heaters and said that her children’s health was “severely impacted by the cold”. The contractor delivered temporary heaters on the same day.
The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident had reported that her heating did not work 2 weeks prior to this contact. While we acknowledge she may have been experiencing issues before this, we have not seen evidence that she reported this to the landlord.
It is noted that the landlord did not arrange for temporary heaters to be provided to the resident until she requested this. This was 2 weeks after she reported that she had no heating. We would reasonably have expected it to have asked whether the resident needed alternative sources of heating when she reported the boiler issue. That it delayed in providing temporary heating was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord carried out a boiler survey on 31 March 2023 on the basis that it would carry out a like-for-like replacement. The landlord has said that it booked installation of the new boiler for 6 April 2023 but that the resident refused the work as she wanted it to fit a combination boiler.
During its stage 1 complaint investigations the landlord agreed to install a combination boiler in order to resolve the water pressure issues reported by the resident. It therefore carried out a second boiler survey on 13 April 2023 for a combination boiler.
This Service considers that it was reasonable that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the heating system and agreed to install a combination system. While the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain installations for heating space and water under the tenancy agreement, there is no requirement on the landlord to install a particular type of boiler at the request of the resident. Therefore while the reasons the resident requested a combination system are understood, there was no obligation on the landlord to agree to this. Its decision to agree to install a combination system at the resident’s request was therefore resolution focussed.
The contractor installed the combination boiler on 19 April 2023. The following day the resident reported that she was unhappy that when contractors carried out works to remove the old boiler from a cupboard it had left holes. She also said that she was unable to use the new boiler until an electrician attended to sign off the works. The resident said that she had been “promised a new radiator” but that the contractor had only replaced the valves. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this call.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord promised to install a new bedroom radiator. It did however agree within its stage 1 complaint response to investigate its efficiency. While the evidence shows that the landlord fitted new valves to the radiator there are no contemporaneous records that show it completed an assessment of its efficiency. It is not clear whether this is because the landlord did not complete such an assessment or that is did not keep a record of the assessment. Either way, that it has not showed that it did what it said it would do was unreasonable. We have therefore made a recommendation that the landlord confirms whether it investigated the efficiency of the radiator. If the landlord did so, it should explain the outcome of its investigation to the resident and confirm the basis on which the valves were fitted.
The landlord completed the electrical works which allowed the resident to use the boiler on 23 April 2023.
We appreciate that where works require several trades to attend there can sometimes be short delays due to scheduling. This is not unreasonable. Considering the length of time the resident had been without a working boiler we would reasonably have expected the landlord to have planned to reduce such delays. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 11 May 2023. She said she was unhappy with follow on works completed to the old boiler cupboard. The resident was not satisfied that the landlord had only filled the holes left after removing the boiler. She felt that the landlord should have redecorated the cupboard and addressed “exposed” wires and pipes so she could use it as storage. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request at this time. This was unreasonable.
On 28 June 2023 the resident again telephoned the landlord and expressed frustration that it had not returned to “plaster or paint” the former boiler cupboard. She emailed the landlord about the issue 10 days later and said that there were holes in the cupboard as the contractor had done a “shoddy job”. That the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response to her request was unreasonable.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 4 September 2023 and agreed to “tidy up” the old boiler cupboard and ensure it was “hazard free”. It said within its call notes that the resident was likely to make a complaint as she wanted further work doing to make the cupboard “nice for extra storage”.
While we acknowledge that the landlord was not obliged to carry out improvements to the decorative condition of the boiler cupboard. It was however obliged to ensure that it left the area free of hazards when it removed the boiler. That it delayed in ensuring that it had done so was a failing.
We do not consider that it was reasonable that it took the landlord more than 4 months to respond to the resident’s request. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident had chased the landlord several times and invested unnecessary time and effort.
Overall, the landlord did not:
1. Respond to the resident’s reports that she had no heating within the timescales in its policy.
2. Offer temporary heaters until requested by the resident.
3. Address the resident’s concerns about the efficiency of the bedroom radiator.
4. Respond within a reasonable period to her concerns about the condition of the boiler cupboard.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about issues with the heating system and associated works.

Complaint handling.

The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 11 working days after the resident raised it. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that landlords must acknowledge and log complaints within 5 working days of receipt. The reasons for the delay are unknown. However, that there was a delay was a departure from the Code and a failing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 18 working days. This exceeded the timeframe outlined in the Code and in its own policy. This was a failing. That it did not acknowledge and apologise for this in its stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response addressed each of the concerns raised by the resident clearly. It provided a reasonable explanation for the delays experienced, apologised, explained how it had put the issue right and offered compensation.
The landlord offered £50 for the delay in the contractor attending and £150 for a lack of heating. At the time of the stage 1 complaint response the resident had been without a working boiler for 5 weeks. During this period she had been without any heating at all for 15 days. After this time the landlord provided her with 2 temporary fan heaters. Given the size of the property the resident would have had to move these heaters from room to room. We do not therefore consider that the compensation offered by the landlord in was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
On 28 April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She raised new concerns that:
1. She had been asking it to install a combination boiler since 2011 due to poor water pressure and the property being cold.
2. The delay had caused her financial detriment and affected her mental health.
Within a week of the escalation request she informed the landlord that contractors had damaged a pair of her shoes during works to the boiler.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframes outlined in its policy and in the Code.
Its stage 2 response did not however address all the further concerns raised by the resident in her escalation request. It made no reference to the resident’s statement that she had been asking the landlord to fit a combination boiler for 12 years. Nor did it address the detriment she said she had experienced because of the alleged delays. This was a failing.
Within the stage 2 response the landlord asked the resident to provide further information in relation to outstanding works. The Code states that if any aspect of a complaint is unclear, the landlord must ask the resident for clarification. The landlord had the opportunity to contact the resident prior to providing its response to obtain details of the works we had referred to. This would have allowed it to provide a thorough response addressing all points of the complaint. We have not seen evidence that it did so and this was a failing.
On 2 June 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and said she remained unhappy following its stage 2 complaint response. She said she did not feel the landlord was “answering [her] question”. The landlord replied to the resident by email 11 days later and asked what question she felt it had not answered. This was not a reasonable timeframe in which to respond to her communication.
On 13 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord whether she should provide the receipt for her damaged trainers to it, or to this Service. The landlord replied and asked her to provide it with the proof. It is not clear whether the resident did so.
The landlord’s decision to ask for proof was reasonable. We would also however have reasonable expected it to explain how it would deal with the matter once the proof was provided eg if it would refer the matter to its insurer.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
Overall, the landlord did not:
1. Respond to the stage 1 complaint within the timeframe outlined in the Code or its own policy.
2. Acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling delay.
3. Provide proportionate compensation for the detriment experienced by the resident.
4. Address all issues of the complaint within its stage 2 response.
5. Respond to the resident’s communications within a reasonable period.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about issues with the heating system and associated works.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Rodents in the property.
2. External rendering work.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise formally to the resident for its failings in relation to its handling of her concerns about issues with the heating system and its handling of her complaint.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 comprising:
  1. £300 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the loss of heating.
  2. £200 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint.

This is in addition to the £200 compensation previously offered by the landlord. If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the amount previously offered in its stage 1 complaint response.

The landlord must consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should confirm whether it investigated the efficiency of the radiator. If it did so, it should explain the outcome of its investigation to the resident and this Service and confirm the basis on which the valves were fitted.