Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202124649)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124649

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

2 December 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
  1. A boiler repair.
  2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
  2. On Friday 4 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the boiler in the property had broken down. An emergency repair was raised and an engineer attended the same day. The engineer determined that a part in the boiler needed to be replaced. A further emergency repair was raised to provide temporary fan heaters to the resident, which were delivered on that evening. The engineer then returned on Monday 7 February 2022 to complete the boiler repair.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 February 2022 raising a formal complaint. She described the elements of her complaint as:
    1. She was initially told by the engineer that he would obtain the replacement part needed from a colleague’s van. However, the engineer did not return and she later received an email from the landlord stating that an appointment had been booked for 7 February 2022.
    2. She was left without hot water between 4 and 7 February 2022 other than an electric shower. Due to her medical conditions she has difficulty filling a kettle, so was unable to clean dishes.
    3. The landlord delivered electric fan heaters, but they were left on the doorstep and got wet due to the rain, so were unable to be used immediately as they first had to be dried out. The resident had to rely on a charity to provide an electric blanket to keep warm.
    4. She was a vulnerable tenant and the landlord was aware of her medical conditions. However, the landlord did not take this into account when responding to the repair.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Explained that the engineer contacted their colleague to see if they had the replacement part required to repair the boiler. The colleague did not and the engineer then ordered a replacement part from the supplier. The landlord apologised that this was not explained properly to the resident and for the confusion this caused. The part was delivered and fitted on Monday 7 February 2022, which was the next working day from the Friday appointment.
    2. Said that the operative who delivered the fan heaters stated that they knocked on the door, but received no reply and left the heaters on the doorstep under the canopy. The landlord had no record of any contact from the resident over the weekend informing it that the heaters could not be used.
    3. Confirmed that it did have a record of the resident’s medical conditions and that the repair was prioritised in line with its policies and procedures relating to vulnerable tenants.
    4. Stated that it was satisfied that it had responded to the boiler repair in a timely manner in line with its policies.
    5. Offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture in reignition of the increase in energy costs caused by using the temporary fan heaters.
  5. Following the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2022. It explained that following a review of the complaint, it accepted that it should have addressed the delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord apologised and offered an additional £50 compensation.
  6. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues, saying that she was put at risk by the landlord as it did not consider her vulnerabilities, that the temporary heaters were left in the rain, and that the landlord’s compensation offer was inadequate.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for “keeping the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair including but not limited to: Installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and sanitation”.
  2. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook states that a loss of heating at any time of the year for a vulnerable tenant will be considered an emergency, to be attended within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy provides payment guidance for when there had been admitted service failure. For an increase in utility bills due to work carried out by the landlord, the guidance recommends a payment of up to £50. For failing to meet its published service standards, the guidance recommends a payment of £50.

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her correspondence with the landlord and with this Service, the resident has described adverse effects on her health conditions that she explains were caused by the boiler repair. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. 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.

How the landlord handled the repair to the boiler

  1. Once it was informed by the resident that the boiler had broken down, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
  2. It raised an emergency repair in line with its policy for vulnerable tenants and an engineer attended the same day. It is sometimes the case that a repair cannot be made immediately if a part is required, and this does not necessarily mean that there was a failing on the part of a landlord if it progressed the repair appropriately. In this case, the engineer identified the problem and ordered the necessary replacement part straight away. Temporary heaters were also provided. The part was delivered and the repair was completed on the next working day. There is no indication that the repair could have been carried out any sooner.
  3. While the Ombudsman acknowledges how distressing the resident found being without central heating and hot water over the weekend, especially in light of her health issues, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it handled the boiler repair. The repair was completed in line with its published timescales for vulnerable residents. Nevertheless, the landlord offered a £100 goodwill gesture to cover any increase in heating costs while using the temporary heaters, which was in excess of the amount set out in its policy.
  4. However, there were failings with communication, with the landlord acknowledging in its complaint responses that, after finding that the colleague did not have the part required and therefore needing to order one, this was not explained properly to the resident, and apologised for the confusion this caused. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was made aware that same day that the repair would be completed on the Monday.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging this failing in its response to the complaint. Further, in an email dated 1 July 2022 following on from the complaint responses, the landlord again acknowledged it’s mistake, saying, ‘We should have explained the position to you properly at the first visit…’ It said that it would make sure this feedback was shared with the staff involved.
  6. Regarding the resident’s concern about the heaters being left outside with no one ringing the doorbell, there is a discrepancy between the landlord’s version of events and that of the resident’s, that the Ombudsman is not able to reconcile. However, it would have been reasonable, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, for the landlord to have made efforts to ensure that the heaters were safely delivered if there was no answer at the door, for example by telephoning the resident. The landlord’s 1 July 2022 email acknowledged this, saying that it should have made sure that the resident ‘…had the temporary heaters in your home as soon as they were delivered.’ The landlord said that it would make sure this feedback was shared with the staff involved. It is noted that the resident did not contact the landlord to advise of any issues with the heaters, and has referred to using fan heaters in some of her correspondence.
  7. While there were some failings here on the part of the landlord which led to confusion and distress to the resident, it has acknowledged its mistakes, apologised for these, confirmed what action it would take to prevent a recurrence, and offered a £100 goodwill gesture. As such, the Ombudsman considers that it has provided ‘reasonable redress’ to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in providing a stage one response to her initial complaint and offered £50 compensation for this service failure. The resident first requested to raise a complaint on 5 February 2022 and the landlord sent the stage one complaint response on 5 May 2022: 52 working days outside of its published timescale of ten working days.
  2. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for the delay. The £50 payment was offered in line with landlord’s compensation policy and is also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance detailed above. However, this delay also caused additional time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter, contacting this Service on several occasions to express her dissatisfaction that the landlord was not progressing her complaint. It was not until this Service wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2022 that a formal complaint was opened and the stage one response was then sent.
  3. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord as its apology and compensation offer did not fully take into account the time and trouble caused to the resident. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £100 in recognition of the resident having to seek the intervention of this Service in order for the landlord to open a formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused in pursuing a response to her complaint.
  2. This compensation award is in addition to the £150 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process. This should now be paid to the resident, if the landlord has not done so already.