Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202118314)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118314

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

6 June 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time he was without heating and hot water at the start of his tenancy and the level of compensation offered.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and its record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 8 March 2021.
  2. The landlord initially arranged for a ‘turn on and test’ appointment for the resident’s gas on 12 March 2021, however the operative was not able to gain access to the property. A further appointment was arranged for 24 March 2021; however, the records show that no access to the property was established. Following this, the appointment was arranged for 30 March 2021 at which point the operative identified that the boiler needed replacing. The boiler replacement was completed on 6 April 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint during September 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken for his gas system to be accessible within the property at the start of his tenancy. He also expressed concern that he had paid a month of rent but had not been able to move into the property due to a lack of heating.  He added that the situation had impacted his mental health and had caused great inconvenience.
  4. In response to the complaint, the landlord detailed the record of events and apologised for the overall delay in activating the gas supply to the property. it explained that it had attended the property to replace the boiler within three working days of the turn on and test appointment. It acknowledged that the resident felt that he was not able to move into the property straight away and offered one weeks rent as compensation which was equivalent to £67.87.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and maintained that he was unable to move into the property due to the delay in completing repairs to the heating system and felt that the property was uninhabitable during this time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the issues reported and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time he was without heating and hot water at the start of his tenancy and the level of compensation offered.

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing installations inside the property for the provision of gas, heating and hot water. The resident is responsible for allowing the landlord access to the property in order to carry out inspections and complete repairs at any reasonable time of day. The landlord’s tenancy handbook confirms that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs, should be attended to within three days and non-urgent repairs should be completed within 25-30 days. The landlord has confirmed that a ‘turn on and test’ appointment would be treated as urgent and should usually be arranged within five working days of the tenancy beginning.
  2. When a property is void (does not have a tenant), a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards (where there is an immediate risk to a person’s health and safety). It is good practice that a property should be habitable, meaning it is not unsafe to live in and has basic facilities for washing, heating and cooking etc.
  3. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident was without heating and hot water in the property between 8 March 2021 and 6 April 2021. The landlord acted reasonably by arranging for the turn on and test appointment to be carried out on 12 March 2021, within four working days of the tenancy start date. This was arranged within a reasonable timescale in line with the landlord’s obligations, however, the operative reported not being able to gain access to the property and left a card for the resident. Following further contact from the resident on 22 March 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging another appointment within a reasonable timeframe for 24 March 2021, however, again no access was granted on this date. The appointment was successfully carried out on 30 March 2021.
  4. In line with the tenancy agreement, it would be the resident’s responsibility to provide access to the property at appointed times. Any delays caused by the resident’s inability to provide access during this time were outside of the landlord’s control; the landlord would not reasonably be able to complete the turn on and test appointment without accessing the property or supply. As such, the landlord would not be expected to provide compensation to the resident for the delay in carrying out the turn on and test appointment between 8 March 2021 and 30 March 2021 as it had taken reasonable steps to arrange the appointments within a reasonable timescale.
  5. Once it was established that the boiler needed to be replaced on 30 March 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for this to take place on 6 April 2021, this was within three working days considering the bank holiday. The landlord would not reasonably be able to appoint non-emergency repairs during a bank holiday and the timeframe was not significant or unreasonable. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that the issues with the boiler had not been identified prior to his tenancy start date. It is noted that the landlord had attempted to carry out a gas safety inspection on 9 February 2021 in line with its obligations but it was not able to fully check the boiler as the gas had been previously capped and any testing could not take place until the property was tenanted and the gas was restored. Not all repair issues can be picked up during the void inspection and in some cases repair issues are only identifiable once a tenant moves into the property.
  6. It is noted that the resident did not feel he was able to move into the property on 8 March 2021 and continued to live at his former property until the boiler was replaced on 6 April 2021 due to his concern that the property was uninhabitable. There is no evidence to suggest that the property had any category one hazards which would deem it uninhabitable between 8 March 2021 and 6 April 2021. Similarly, there are no other repair issues reported which suggest that the resident could not otherwise use the property as normal. The landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident for the rent he had paid during this period as he had signed the tenancy agreement, at which point he became responsible for paying the rent as agreed. The Ombudsman does not deem that there were any service failures, but it was reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion to offer one week’s rent, equivalent to £67.87, as a gesture of goodwill in view of the circumstances. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure (again the Ombudsman has not concluded that this was the case) which were of a short duration and did not affect the outcome of the overall complaint. As such, the landlord has offered compensation which was proportionate to any inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and its record keeping.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timeframe.
  2. The records show that the resident initially asked the landlord for compensation in May 2020, although this was not raised as a formal complaint until 14 September 2021. The resident raised his concerns again on 29 September 2021 as he had not received a response. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 1 November 2021, which was 34 working days following the resident’s initial complaint and significantly outside of the landlord’s ten working day timescale at stage one. It provided its stage two complaint response on 16 November 2021 which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as the resident’s request to escalate his complaint and communication logs. In this particular case, the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. Furthermore, the resident has advised that he was given conflicting information regarding his complaint and had been told that he would need to re-log his complaint at stage one. Due to the lack of available evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to investigate this concern which is likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident. 
  4. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay in responding to the complaint, however, it is the Ombudsman’s view that compensation is warranted for the inconvenience caused by the delay at stage one as there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately updated on the progress of his complaint. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord should offer £25 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time he was without heating and hot water at the start of his tenancy and the level of compensation offered.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint and its record keeping.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £25 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and record keeping.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident one weeks’ rent as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that processes are followed and residents are adequately updated where there is likely to be a delay.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.