Redwing Living Limited (202001090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001090

Redwing Living Limited

21 July 2021

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 replacement of the resident’s storage heaters.
The resident’s reports of exposed wiring in the lounge.
The impact of the above issues on the resident’s health.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has detailed how the landlord’s handling of the repairs, in particular the lack of heating and being injured by the temporary heaters, has affected his health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident became the tenant of the landlord’s property on 4 February 2020.
According to the landlord’s repair logs it raised a repair on 4 February 2020 for the storage heaters in the property, which were “not heating up”. An emergency repair was raised on 5 February 2020 and the landlord’s contractor attended the same day. The contractor reported back that three small storage heaters in the hallway and two bedrooms were switched on and warm. However, due to their size, they did not “give off much heat”. The contractor said that the hallway heater may be suitable due to the location, but the bedroom heaters may not be warm enough for the resident.
The landlord subsequently asked for more information on its contractor’s recommendations and wrote to the resident, on 6 February 2020, to inform him of its contractor’s findings. It confirmed that it would replace the storage heaters in the bedrooms. However, later that day the contractor informed the landlord that it visited that afternoon and found that the heater in the hallway also needed replacing. The contractor said that the heaters were not of the size and output to heat the areas required and the resident was sleeping in the living area at night, due to the bedrooms being cold.
On 15 February 2020 the landlord raised an emergency repair to provide the resident with temporary heaters. They were provided on the same day. The landlord was in the process of obtaining quotes for the required works at the time.
The landlord received a report from its contractor on 21 February 2020 confirming that three of the four storage heaters in the property were faulty. The contractor provided two quotes for the two options available. One was to remove and replace the faulty storage heaters with electronically controlled storage heaters. The other, cheaper option was to change to a different type of heaters to provide more flexibility heating the property.
Works were raised on 11 March 2020 for the storage heaters. A repair was also raised for “exposed wiring in lounge, [and for a] number of bulbs [being] out”. According to the landlord’s repair records, it attempted to call the resident on 13 and 18 March 2020 to arrange an appointment. It also attended the property on 18 March 2020 but was unable gain access. The landlord left the resident a no-access card and asked him to call to re-book the appointment.
On 18 March 2020 the resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the heater repairs and to an “exposed electric cable” (a lightbulb cable) in his lounge. He said that the temporary heaters provided did not work.
On 19 March 2020 the landlord re-raised the works to replace the storage heaters. The records show that this was put on hold due to the government implementing coronavirus restrictions.
The resident pursued a response on 21 March 2020. The landlord informed him, on 23 March 2020, that it had raised the repairs and its contractor would contact him soon. The resident responded, asking for a clear date for the repair.
On 23 March 2020 the government announced a “lockdown” in the UK, ordering people to “stay at home”. The restrictions were eased on 10 May 2020; however, it was acknowledged that social landlords may experience a backlog of repairs.
According to the landlord’s repair log of 14 May 2020,“…[the resident] contacted to book in [the] replacement [and]… requested 4 June”.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to replace the storage heaters. The resident asked about “the spec” for the heaters and requested like-for-like storage heaters. This was approved and the works were re-booked to allow for the ordering of materials, at the resident’s request, for 11 June 2020. The works were marked as complete on 12 June 2020.
On 21 June 2020 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He remained dissatisfied:

With the time taken for the landlord to replace his storage heaters.
With the time taken for the landlord to provide temporary heaters and that two of them did not work. He was also concerned about the safety of the portable heaters and expected a high electricity bill because they were not energy efficient.
That the landlord left the walls around the new storage heaters unpainted.
That the lightbulb cable was hanging from the ceiling since he moved in, and the landlord did not fix this. The resident was concerned that this was unsafe.

On 23 June 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had raised a formal complaint and would contact the resident within two working days.
The landlord internally communicated on 25 June 2020 that an electricity check was not carried out prior to the resident moving in and asked for this to be completed.
The landlord called the resident on 26 June 2020. According to its notes, it confirmed that the light fitting would be fixed on 2 July 2020. The landlord noted that the resident said he did not know how it could resolve his complaint “after everything he endured physically and mentally”. It was noted that the resident had previously been offered the option to end his tenancy early.
On 30 June 2020 the landlord noted on its system that the resident had asked to escalate his complaint. It wrote to him to confirm that it would respond within ten days.
A job was raised for a “fixed wire test” and this was completed on 7 July 2020.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 13 July 2020. It said that:

The heating repair was not straight forward, and it needed to investigate why the heaters needed full replacement. The government implemented coronavirus restrictions on 20 March 2020, so the landlord was unable to replace the old heating system at this time, but it had provided temporary heaters.
The temporary heaters were tested on a regular basis and deemed fit for purpose. The landlord apologised if the resident felt they were not sufficient.
As soon as it became aware of the issue of the electric cable hanging loose from the ceiling, “it was dealt with around… [11 June 2020]”.

The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for “what you have been going through since the start of the tenancy”. The landlord said it would try to “keep tenants more informed in regard to expectations and progress in the future”. It directed the resident to contact the Ombudsman, if he remained unhappy.
The resident replied to the landlord on 18 July 2020. He maintained that he informed the landlord about the hanging electric cable when he moved in, and said an engineer had since completed an electricity check but did not fix the cable. The resident reiterated that the landlord took two weeks to provide him with temporary heaters and one did not work. He remained unhappy with the delays in replacing his storage heaters, particularly the time taken for the landlord to instruct the contractor to replace the heater, after receiving a quote for replacement, and that it still had not painted around the new storage heaters.
The resident said that the landlord’s compensation offer did not cover the electricity bill that resulted from using the temporary heaters, and the landlord did not address his efforts in pursuing the repair through phone calls, emails, and visiting the landlord’s office.
In its further response, of 29 July 2020, the landlord said that its contractor found the exposed cable to not be dangerous, and it had said that it would replace the “lamp” but had not received a response from the resident to gain access to do this. The landlord said the resident was “not without any heating at all from the lack of the temporary heaters being supplied, as there was some heating in the property,…[albeit] not as much heat as…[the resident said he] wanted”. It reiterated that: it needed to investigate the problem and instructed for the heating to be replaced but, due to the high cost, it looked at other options available; and that the lockdown delayed matters further. It confirmed it had offered the resident compensation “for the stress during this time” and advised him of the next steps he could take, if he remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

In line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it is responsible for heating and hot water, electrical wiring, sockets, and light fittings. It will respond to emergency repairs within four hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days (an appointment will be made at the resident’s convenience). The repairs and maintenance policy defines emergency repairs as any repair which is deemed to present a risk to the health of the resident or the integrity of the building if it is not rectified immediately.
The repairs and maintenance policy says that some jobs may require a pre-inspection before the repair appointment can be arranged. This will occur where the scope of the job is not known or if the diagnosis given by the resident is not detailed enough. Following a pre-inspection and diagnosis of a repair, an appointment will be made with the resident to complete the work within the relevant timeframes outlined in the repairs service standard above.
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure refers to a discretionary compensation policy. A copy of this has not been provided to this Service.

The replacement of the resident’s storage heaters.

The landlord did not adhere to either of the timescales given within its repairs and maintenance policy when replacing the storage heaters. However, the evidence shows that the landlord actively investigated the source of the problem and sought quotes for the works required, which is often necessary in order for the landlord to establish the works required, and to ensure it is making the most of its funds as a social landlord), prior to the coronavirus lockdown. When the coronavirus restrictions were implemented in March 2020, the storage-heater replacement would not have been carried out until restrictions were eased, because the resident had been provided with temporary heaters, and so it was not classed as an emergency. The landlord’s explanation for the delays in replacing the storage heaters was accurate and reasonable. The landlord offered the resident £300 for the impact of the delays. This amount offered for the distress and inconvenience was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and was a reasonable attempt to put matters right, in the circumstances.
The resident remained unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to provide him with temporary heaters. The resident reported the problem on 4 February 2020 and the landlord’s contractor attended on 5 and 6 February 2020. The contractor’s correspondence of 6 February 2020 made it clear that the storage heaters in the bedrooms and hallway were not sufficient to heat the areas required. The contractor also reported that the resident was sleeping in the living area at night, due to the bedrooms being cold. Based on this, the landlord should have acted promptly to supply temporary heaters. It did not do this, and did not raise the emergency job to supply the temporary heaters until 15 February 2020. The landlord did not find this to be a service failure because it said that the resident’s property was not without heating. However, the landlord’s view of the matter is contradicted by the evidence from its contractors, who had attended the property and reported that the storage heaters would not heat the bedrooms, and how this was affecting the resident.
Although the landlord has not provided a copy of its discretionary compensation procedure, it is common industry practice for landlords to compensate residents towards reasonable costs while they use temporary heaters during heating repairs. In this case, the landlord has not considered compensation towards this, despite the resident’s request, and has not addressed this aspect of his complaint. In response to the resident’s complaint that some of the temporary heaters did not work, the landlord said that they had been tested prior to being sent. However, the landlord did not consider that the temporary heaters may have since failed.
Overall, the time taken to repair the heating was not unreasonable, given the need to properly investigate the problem. In the absence of properly working heating, in winter, and with no quick repair evident, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to provide temporary heating. There is no explanation for the 10 days it took the landlord to provide the temporary heating. The landlord’s mitigation, i.e. that there was some output from the storage heaters, appears to be irrelevant, given that the output was considered sufficiently low as to warrant their replacement. Overall, given the time of year this occurred, this was a significant failing, and along with the omissions from the landlord’s complaint responses, indicates poor handling, which the landlord’s apologies and compensation did not fully remedy.

The resident’s reports of exposed wiring in the lounge.

The landlord said in its complaint response on 13 July 2020 that, as soon as it became aware of the electric cable hanging loose from the resident’s ceiling “it was dealt with around [11 June 2020]”.
The evidence shows that the repair to the electrical wiring in the lounge was first raised on 11 March 2020. It is not clear if, when the resident first reported the cable issue, he expressed his concern about the safety of the wire. If he had, this would have been classed as an emergency repair, and should have been attended within four hours to inspect and make it safe if necessary. Otherwise, the repair should have been completed within 20 working days. According to the landlord’s repair records, it attempted to arrange an appointment on 13 and 18 March 2020 but was unable to reach the resident nor gain access on 18 March 2020. Following further contact from the resident, in which he raised his concerns about the heating and wiring repairs, the landlord re-raised the heating repair. However, there is no evidence of the landlord re-raising the wiring repair. The resident expressed his concern about the safety of the wire on 21 June 2020. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the landlord assessed the issue at that point to determine whether it was an emergency, which, given its nature, it could have been. The landlord did not inspect the wire to establish that it was safe, and arrange follow on works, until 7 July 2020, nearly four months after it was first reported. This was an unreasonable delay, given the potential risks involved. The landlord failed to identify this in its complaint investigations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about:

Its handling of the replacement of the resident’s storage heaters.
Its handling of the resident’s reports of exposed wiring in the lounge.

Reasons

While the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation for its delays in replacing the storage heaters, and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience, it failed to identify its unreasonable delay in providing the resident temporary heaters and inspecting the exposed wiring in the lounge. The landlord has also failed to consider compensating the resident for the use of temporary heaters and to address several points of the resident’s complaint, including the painting around the new storage heaters.

Orders

In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:

Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of exposed wiring. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report.
Reimburse the resident for any reasonable extra costs he incurred running the temporary heaters (above his usual heating costs) in the time period covered by this investigation. If the resident cannot provide evidence for any extra costs, the landlord should offer an appropriate estimated sum. This reimbursement must be made within eight weeks of the date of this report.

These payments are in addition to the £300 already offered by the landlord.
The landlord must update this Service when it has complied with each of the two orders.