Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

SHAL Housing Limited (202402410)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402410

SHAL Housing Limited

31 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty water heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house.
  2. The landlord installed a boiler in the property in March 2020. On 14 February 2023 the resident reported that the boiler was not producing enough hot water for her to have a bath. The landlord visited 3 times over the next 2 months to inspect this. On 19 April 2023 the resident complained that the issue remained and that sometimes she did not have enough hot water to wash her dishes. She also emphasised that she needed frequent hot baths to manage the symptoms of her medical conditions.
  3. The landlord visited on the same day and noted that the boiler did not produce enough hot water for a warm bath. It provided a stage 1 response on 26 April 2023 and explained that the boiler was working as it was intended to. It advised that the resident should contact her GP to make an Occupational Health (OH) referral. It explained that OH services would be able to assess her and make recommendations to the landlord about any reasonable adjustments she may need, which could include a more powerful boiler.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 April 2023 as she felt the landlord was obligated to provide a more powerful boiler. The landlord visited the property on 8 June 2023 and observed that the boiler produced a sufficient amount of hot bath water. It provided its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. It explained its observations at the 8 June 2023 visit and noted that the resident had an electric shower which she could use instead of the bath. It also noted that the resident had agreed at the 8 June 2023 visit to seek an OT referral from her GP. It explained that it required an OT recommendation before it could consider upgrading the boiler as a reasonable adjustment.
  5. The resident was unhappy with this and referred her complaint to us in April 2024. She has advised that she provided the landlord with evidence from her GP, but this did not trigger any progress. She also advised that the OT services her GP referred her to have advised they cannot assess her for housing related needs. To resolve her complaint, she wants the landlord to upgrade the boiler. She also wants it to compensate her for distress she says has been caused by having to visit friends’ and relatives’ houses whenever she needs to have a bath.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of a faulty boiler from 2020 onwards. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which we typically consider to be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident made a formal complaint on 19 April 2023, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred before 18 April 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty water heating system

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s occupancy agreement both confirm that it is responsible for water heating systems in the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy also sets out that requests for adaptations must be made through the OT service at the Local Authority (LA). It explains that, following OT recommendations, it can make adaptations to a property. It also sets out that, for adaptations costing over £1,000, the OT service will make an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to the LA. If the LA approves this, the landlord will then also means test the proposed adaptation.
  3. Government guidance on DFG’s sets out that housing associations must be satisfied that the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled person. It elaborates that in cases where a disabled person needs access to a bath and a shower, they would need to demonstrate a medical need for both.
  4. The resident raised the issue with her boiler on 14 February 2023, and we can see the landlord visited on the same day to inspect it. However, it did not record any observations or actions taken at this inspection. The landlord should have documented some kind of observations on the issue the resident reported, even if this was just that it considered the boiler was working as it should. The resident reported the same issues again in April 2023, and we can see the landlord visited on 6 and 11 April 2023.
  5. However, these visit notes are similarly lacking in any detail. We can see the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities as these are recorded in a risk matrix on its system. Given this, and that the resident had reported the same issue 3 times, the landlord should have diagnosed the issue and explored the possibility of an OT referral by this stage.
  6. The resident complained about a lack of progress on 19 April 2023 and reported that the boiler sometimes did not produce enough hot water for her to wash her dishes. The landlord visited again on the same day. It noted that the boiler was not able to produce enough hot water for a warm bath and explained to the resident that this was because of the design of the boiler. It is unclear why it took until the 4th visit to make these observations and explain this to the resident. It should have done so at the 1st visit on 14 February 2023, and we consider this delay has likely prolonged a resolution of this issue and caused the resident distress. This also delayed any consideration of an OT referral.
  7. We also note that the landlord did not inspect the temperature of the water from the hot tap in the kitchen despite the resident reporting that it was insufficient. BEAMA (formerly British Electrotechnical and Manufacturer’s Association) guidance on recommended water temperatures in homes states that kitchen sinks should be able to produce water between 46 and 48 degrees Celsius. Therefore, the landlord should have satisfied itself that the sink tap was functioning within these parameters and documented this.
  8. The landlord then provided its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023. It explained that the boiler was working as it should but that the resident should contact her GP about an OT referral. It explained that, following an OT recommendation, it could then consider upgrading the boiler as a disability adaptation to facilitate warmer baths to manage her health conditions.
  9. The landlord’s position on this was in line with government guidance. Although it appears to have accepted that the boiler does not produce enough water for a warm bath, the resident has an electric shower. Therefore, government guidance does not require the landlord to upgrade the boiler to restore full use of the bath unless the resident completes a successful application for a DFG to evidence why she requires both. However, we consider the landlord should reasonably have advised her of this sooner than it did.
  10. We also note that the landlord’s policy states that requests for adaptations are to be made through the OT service at the LA, and so it was incorrect to signpost the resident to her GP. We consider this likely contributed to the delay in progressing things and caused the resident some inconvenience.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response, and so she contacted the landlord and reiterated her complaint. We cannot see that she repeated her concerns about the kitchen tap at this stage.
  12. The landlord visited on 8 June 2023 to inspect the bath water again and discussed this with her. It also noted that the resident had made contact with OT services via her GP. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she contacted OT services via her GP around this time, but they were unable to assist her. It seems likely then that her GP did not refer her to the OT services at the LA. The GP should reasonably have been able to discuss the resident’s situation with her and refer her to the correct services. While we note the landlord should have directed her straight to the LA, GPs are also well placed to make this referral. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord’s omission here is meaningfully responsible for the fact she did not reach the correct service.
  13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023 and signposted the resident again to her GP for an OT referral. We can see her GP then wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2023 and asked it to resolve “the hot water issue” to support the resident’s medical conditions. The resident asked for an update on 12 July 2023, and the landlord responded the following day and reiterated its position that she needed to contact the GP for an OT referral.
  14. According to its own policy an adaptation application does not require any input from a GP. Therefore, we consider the resident incurred some unnecessary inconvenience in engaging with her GP about this following the landlord’s failure to signpost her to the LA. However, we note again that the GP was well placed at this stage to make this referral for her. For this reason, we cannot reasonably take the view that the landlord’s repeated incorrect signposting was to blame for the continuing delay.
  15. Following this we can see the resident forwarded the landlord the 16 June 2023 letter from her GP on 19 July 2023. However, from this point onwards there are limited records related to any further action taken by the landlord or communication with the resident. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that, following her engagement with OT services via the GP in 2023, she did not attempt this again until October 2024. She explained that the OT service then advised her in October 2024 that it was still unable to help her. At present, the resident advises she has made no progress in securing an OT referral and is confused on what to do. With this and the landlord’s failure to correctly signpost her to the LA in mind, we will order it to make this referral. We will also order it to pay a small sum compensation to put right this mistake.
  16. The landlord’s policy on compensation states it will make discretionary payments of £50 to put right minor impacts which it is fully responsible for. The policy defines minor impacts as when there has not been significant inconvenience or distress caused.
  17. We note that the landlord incorrectly signposted the resident to the GP from April 2023 to July 2023, and that this caused her some inconvenience during this period. However, the GP should have been able to make this referral, and once the resident realised that the GP was not progressing things she had a responsibility to make further enquiries. For example, a google search of “OT services housing adaptations” produces a link to apply for an assessment with a local authority via www.gov.uk. We cannot see any evidence that the resident made further enquiries of this nature. Therefore, we do not consider that the landlord’s incorrect signposting was meaningfully to blame for the lack of progression from April 2023 to present. With this in mind, we will only order the landlord pays the resident £50 to put right the minor inconvenience this omission caused her.
  18. We note that the resident reported that her kitchen sink was not producing enough hot water on 19 April 2023, and there is no evidence the landlord took any action related to this. The resident advises that this issue remains at present. However, we also note that the resident has not reported this to the landlord since 19 April 2023. Therefore, we consider the impact of this is most reasonably described as minor, and so we will order the landlord pays £50 to put this right. We will also order it to carry out an inspection. If it finds the sink is unable to produce water at temperatures between 46 and 48 degrees Celsius as per BEAMA guidance, we will order it to raise works to address this.
  19. The landlord visited the property 3 times between 12 February 2023 and 12 April 2023 in response to the resident’s reports, but each time failed to document any observations or actions taken in relation to it. We consider this likely delayed things slightly and caused the resident some inconvenience, and that this qualifies as a minor impact. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays the resident £50 to put this right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a fault water heating system.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150, inclusive of:
    1. £50 for its failure to document its inspections between February and April 2023.
    2. £50 for its failure to signpost her to OT services at the LA.
    3. £50 for its failure to inspect the kitchen sink following her report on 19 April 2023.
  2. The landlord is to signpost the resident to the OT services at the LA for an adaptations assessment.
  3. The landlord is to inspect the temperature of the water the kitchen sink produces and provide evidence of this result. If it does not produce water at temperatures between 46 and 48 degrees Celsius, the landlord is to raise works to address this and provide timescales for completing these.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.