Stonewater Limited (202005485)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005485

Stonewater Limited

28 May 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his boiler.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident and his partner by mutual exchange on 14 August 2017. The property is a three bedroom house.
  2. On 30 November 2019, the resident called the landlord to report that a pipe to his boiler was leaking. The landlord’s call records note that the resident reported that the leak was constant and near a double electric socket. The resident said he had turned the boiler off but it was still leaking. An Out of Hours (OOHS) engineer then attended the resident’s property on 1 December 2019.
  3. On 2 December 2019, the resident called the landlord to say that its heating contractor had told him that it would not be attending to fit the required parts to his boiler until 4 December 2019 and that he was concerned that the correct parts had not been ordered by the OOHS engineer, who attended on 1 December 2019. The landlord also noted that the resident was not happy that the OOHS engineer advised him to keep boiler on and wait for electrics to sizzle before turning it off. Following the call from the resident the landlord raised a four hour job for the sockets around the resident’s boiler to be checked. The repair notes record that an operative attended the same day. No notes concerning what was found or what action if any was taken was recorded.
  4. The heating contractor’s records note that on 3 December 2019, it attended the resident’s property, tightened up the joint on the boiler’s filter and checked that there were no further drips. The heating contractor’s records also noted that the heating and hot water was checked, that it was ‘‘OK’’ and that no parts were required.
  5. On 20 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to report that he again had no heating or hot water. The landlord noted that the resident had reported a leak from the bottom of his boiler. A new job was raised on the same day with the heating contractor, the landlord said that temporary heaters should also be provided if necessary.
  6. The landlord’s heating contractor attended the resident’s property on 21 January 2021. The heating contractor’s records noted that a new filter was urgently required. The heating contractor attended the resident’s property again on 4 February 2020 to replace the filter and reported that they were unable to replace the filter as it was not a like for like and so either it needed to be re-piped to fit or for the filter to be repositioned to the airing cupboard, which it recommended. The following day the heating contractor sought permission from the landlord for the new location for the filter and for the pipework to be ordered. 
  7. On 24 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repair to the ongoing leak to his boiler. The landlord noted that the tenant was not happy as its heating contractor had been out a ‘‘few times and called and rebooked four times’’.
  8. On 28 February 2020, the landlord approved works to remove the filter from above the boiler, to install a new filter in the airing cupboard and to move the pump to the left.
  9. On 9 March 2020, the annual gas safety check was carried out on the resident’s boiler and no defects were detected.
  10. On 16 March 2020, the resident called the landlord to report hearing a constant buzz from the electrics in his property. The landlord raised a job for its engineer to attend within the next four hours. The landlord’s records note that on 24 March 2020, the engineer reported that there was a leak from the pipework above the boiler and as such the landlord’s heating contractor would need to attend.
  11. There is no evidence of the landlord’s heating contractor attending until 6 April 2020 when it carried out the works to remove the filter from above the boiler, to install a new filter in the airing cupboard and to move the pump to the left, that had been approved by the landlord on 28 February 2020. During the visit the heating contractor noted that there was an uncontainable leak from the cylinder. The new cylinder was installed the next day, however, when the boiler was tested it was not working and so breakdown engineer had to be called out.
  12. The breakdown engineer attended on 9 April 2020. The breakdown engineer bled all the radiators and fired the boiler up before leaving. The breakdown engineer noted that they had advised the resident that air was normal in a heating system when work had been carried out on it. Two hours after the engineer left the premises, the resident reported that the boiler had no power and that he had no heating or hot water. The breakdown engineer revisited that day to remove air from the system via the pump and noted that the boiler fired up and when tested was working correctly.
  13. On 15 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to seek compensation for having to use his immersion heater for 5 months as his boiler was usable during that time. The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 May 2020. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 May 2020.
  14. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 June 2020. The landlord acknowledged that a job for the repair to the resident’s boiler was raised in November 2019 and that the resident had received many visits from its heating contractor in order to resolve the issue. The landlord explained that a new filter was required, however, the filter was obsolete and so an equivalent had to be obtained.
  15. The landlord went on to explain that once the new filter was fitted a leak was then found on the cylinder and so a new cylinder was also required. However, once this was fitted the boiler kept locking out due to air in the system and so it then had to clear the airlocks in the system. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused during the course of getting the repairs resolved.
  16. Between 19 and 25 June 2020, there is evidence of the resident calling the landlord and the landlord attempting to return the resident’s calls.
  17. The resident spoke to the landlord about his complaint on 1 July 2020. The resident declined the £200 offered as it was ‘‘far off’’ what he was willing to accept and he wished to escalate his complaint. The resident said that there had been a service failure by the landlord’s contractor when it left the leaking filter dripping on the electrics and told his partner it was fine, when he felt it was unsafe. The resident also said that he did not get calls back from the landlord when promised and he had to do all the chasing.
  18. The resident said that he wanted £300 compensation for loss of earnings plus £380 compensation for excess energy usage, which he said his energy bills could verify. The resident also said that he wanted a credit on his rent account for the two months it took to complete the repair. He subsequently informed this Service that his rent account is in arrears at the moment and he would not mind if any reasonable compensation offer was paid to the clear the rent arrears.
  19. The landlord emailed its heating contractor the same day to look into the resident’s allegation that it left the system leaking over electrics and that the operative had told him it would be ‘‘OK’’ and to call in if its ‘‘starts to buzz’’. The heating contractor said that it had no records of that being the case.
  20. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 24 July 2020. The landlord acknowledged that the time taken for it to complete the repair to the resident’s boiler was unacceptable and that this had been acknowledged through its offer of £200 compensation. The landlord also noted that the resident wanted the landlord to also cover the increase in his utility bills resulting from him having to use his immersion heater.
  21. The landlord said that it had asked the resident to provide copies of bills covering the period in question, but that the bills provided covered different periods, which it said made it difficult to see an obvious rise in his utility costs due to him having to use the immersion heater. Nevertheless the landlord said that it would increase its original compensation to £300 to include £100 towards any increase in utility costs that the resident had experienced. The landlord also said that were the resident to provide utility bills which covered the same period he was claiming for it would look at those.
  22. The resident confirmed his complaint to this Service on 5 October 2020. The resident explained that:
    1. He was not happy with the level of compensation offered, that he had had to take a lot of time off work and that he was withholding some rent because the contractor had left his property in an unsafe condition.
    2. When he first reported the leak, it was put as a 24 hour call out and was raised as such three times on three separate occasions.
    3. That there was water dripping from the boiler and his partner was told by the landlord that she should leave it but if she heard a crackle sound she should turn the electrics off.
    4. That he spent over ten hours chasing the repair with the landlord, did not receive any call backs.
    5. He was seeking compensation equivalent to four to six months of rent payments and for the landlord to commit to repairing the damage to the ceiling following the leak from the boiler. The resident provided a number of photographs of his boiler including one showing the boiler location above the thermostat, the isolation switch for the boiler and the washing machine, and two plug sockets.
  23. On 4 February 2021, and following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge his continuing dissatisfaction with the level of compensation it had offered him in response to his complaint. The landlord reinvestigated the resident’s complaint, issuing its response on 18 February 2021. The landlord explained that without direct evidence of the increased heating bills it could not directly compensate the resident for a higher amount.
  24. The landlord also confirmed that, in accordance with its complaints policy, it was also unable to directly compensate the resident for any loss of earnings. The landlord did, however, say that given the length of time the resident experienced the issue with his heating and hot water it would be appropriate for it to increase the £100 it had offered for additional energy usage to £200. This bought the total compensation offered to £500, £300 for the stress, inconvenience and additional delays, plus £200 for additional energy usage.
  25. On 11 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident again. The landlord said that, after further consideration, it would again like to increase its offer of compensation to include two months’ rent, plus the £500 that it had previously offered. The landlord said that this would bring the total compensation it was offering up to a total of £1,620.48, made up of eight weeks rent at £140.06 plus the £500 it had previously offered.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement and policies

  1. Section 2, Part 5 of the resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for space heating and water heating. Section 3, Part 11 obliges the resident to allow the landlord access, at all reasonable hours, to inspect the condition of the property or to carry out repairs.
  2. Section 3.1.1. of the landlord’s repairs policy confirms the landlord’s obligation for the maintenance and repair of heating and hot water installations. The policy explains repair response times for different priority repairs:
    1. High Priority – For repairs that could pose an immediate danger or cause serious damage, the policy states that the landlord will make sure that a resident’s home is safe and secure within four hours of them reporting it. For other high priority repairs it will make a temporary or permanent repair within 24 hours. If a follow on repair is required then its contractors will arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the tenant.
    2. By appointment – Offered for all other repairs within a 20 working day timescale, or to suit tenant requirements.
  3. Section 3.6.1 of landlord’s compensation policy states that under their tenancy conditions, tenants must allow access to their home for repairs to be carried out which may result in them having to take time off work. Therefore the landlord will not compensate for loss of earnings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his boiler

  1. When the resident first reported the leak from his boiler on 30 November 2019, he advised the landlord that the leak was near a double electric socket and continued despite the boiler being turned off. This meant that the landlord should have recognised that this could pose an immediate danger or cause serious damage, and therefore should have taken steps to ensure that the resident’s property was safe within four hours of the resident’s report as a “High Priority” repair in accordance with its above repairs policy. No evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord did so. The first evidence of the landlord attending the property was when its OOHS engineer attended on 1 December 2019, the following day. No reports from the OOHS engineers visit have been seen by this Service.
  2. On 2 December 2019, the resident called the landlord to express his concern about the OOHS engineer advising him to “wait for the electrics to sizzle’’ and about whether the engineer had ordered the correct parts for his boiler. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns by raising a four hour job for the sockets around the resident’s boiler to be checked. The landlord also arranged for its heating contractor to visit the property to inspect the resident’s boiler and to check on the parts required. The heating contractor then attended the following day, tightened up the joint on the boiler’s filter, checked there were no further drips and reported that no parts were required.
  3. There is no evidence of any further reports of issues with the resident’s boiler until 20 January 2020, when the resident called the landlord to report that his boiler was leaking again and that he had no heating and hot water. The landlord’s heating contractor attended the following day, reporting that a new filter was urgently required for the resident’s boiler.
  4. Despite the landlord and its heating contractor being aware that the filter was urgently needed, the heating contractor did not attend the property to install the new filter until 4 February 2020, two weeks later. It was only at this point that it was identified that the filter was not like for like and so either needed to be re-piped to fit or repositioned to the airing cupboard. It then took over three weeks for the landlord to approve the required works, which it did on 28 February 2020, and a further five weeks for the works to carried out, on 6 April 2020. 
  5. During the installation of the new filter, and associated works, the heating contractor noted that there was an uncontrollable leak from the cylinder. This was replaced the following day. However, when the boiler was tested after the installation it did not work and so a breakdown engineer had to be called out to rectify this. The breakdown engineer did not attend until three days later, on 9 April 2020, and it was only after the breakdown engineer returned the same day to remove air from the system that issues with the resident’s boiler were finally rectified.
  6. Overall it took over four months, from 30 November 2019 to 9 April 2020, for the issues with the resident’s boiler to be resolved, including over two months between when the heating engineer had reported that a new filter was urgently needed on 21 January 2020 and when the works were completed. Even taking into account the explanations provided by the landlord for the delay, the time taken for the landlord to resolve the issue with the resident’s boiler was not acceptable and significantly exceeded the 20–working–day non-emergency repairs by appointment timescale given in its repairs policy.
  7. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for any inconvenience caused during the course of getting the repairs resolved and acknowledge that the time taken for it to complete the repair to the resident’s boiler was unacceptable. The landlord initially offered the resident £200 compensation, in its stage one complaint response on 18 June 2020.
  8. Following the resident’s escalation request in which he raised concerns about the leaking filter dripping on the electrics and being told it was fine and about his increased utility bills, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £300 in its stage two complaint response on 24 July 2020. This included £100 towards any increase in utility costs that the resident had experienced and it said that were the resident to provide utility bills which covered the same period he was claiming for it would look at those. The landlord also raised the resident’s concerns about the advice he had been given about the electrics with its heating contractor, who confirmed that they had no evidence that that was the case.
  9. Following further communication from the resident, on 18 February 2021, the landlord agreed to increase its offer of compensation to £500 and then, on 11 March 2021, to £1,620.48 which the landlord said was made up of the £500 previously offered plus eight weeks rent at £140.06. The landlord acted in accordance with section 3.6.1 of its above compensation policy when refusing the resident’s request for compensation for his loss of earnings.
  10. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  11. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests financial remedies of between £250 and £700 in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. As the landlord’s offer of £1,620.48 significantly exceeds the amount suggested in our guidance, we are satisfied that this means that, together with its apology, the landlord has provided the resident with reasonable redress for its acknowledged service failures. This is because its compensation award and apology recognised the impact of those failures on the resident in proportion to the distress, inconvenience, delays, additional energy usage and rent payments that he incurred at the time of the failures.
  12. In his conversation with this Service the resident raised concerns about damage to the plaster on the ceiling below his boiler. The resident said that he has contacted the landlord to follow up on this but the remedial works have not been completed. As there is no evidence of this matter being raised by the resident, nor responded to by the landlord, as part of this complaint, it has not been considered as part of this investigation. However, recommendations have been made below that the landlord contact the resident to discuss these works if they have not yet been completed, and that it pay him the above compensation award if he has not received this already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his boiler satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the unacceptable amount of time it had taken to carry out the repairs to his boiler and offered an amount of compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident which exceeded the levels of financial redress suggested in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Within six weeks of the date of this determination, and if it has not done so already, pay the resident the £1,620.48 compensation it has previously offered.
    2. Within six weeks of the date of this determination, contacts the resident about the remedial works to his plaster following the leak from his boiler if this remains outstanding.
  2. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.