The Guinness Partnership Limited (202119419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119419

The Guinness Partnership Limited

8 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroomed house.
3. On 29 September 2021 the resident reported that her boiler had broken down repeatedly and that she felt the landlord’s contractors were not investigating the problem properly. She said it had been ongoing for around six years but was particularly bad in the past two years. Her desired outcome was for a thorough investigation of the boiler and for it to be repaired properly. The landlord contacted the contractor for further details of the boiler repair history.
4. On 5 October 2021 the contractor provided the landlord with a two-year repair history for the resident’s central heating. It showed that it had responded to the resident’s reports of having no hot water and heating 13 times within that time period and that it had supplied the resident with portable heaters in July 2021 when a repair had to be delayed due to the resident self-isolating. Its most recent visit had been on 1 October 2021 where it had noted there was low water pressure and that, as there was a history of pressure problems, it had booked a pressure test for 11 October 2021.
5. In its stage one complaint response on 17 October 2021 the landlord said that there had been a variety of different issues with the boiler and that the contractors had resolved each issue at the time. It said there had also been pressure loss to the boiler and that this too had been caused by several different issues. It advised that as there was no visible leak the contractor would investigate using a process of elimination, starting with the pressure test.
6. On 25 October 2021, following the pressure test, the resident reported that her boiler had broken down again. The following day she escalated her complaint and requested compensation for damage to her carpet caused by radiator leaks. The landlord advised her that it would not address the compensation request in its response as it had not been mentioned in the original complaint.
7. On 17 November 2021, in its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience the multiple call outs had caused but said that the contractor had responded to the breakdowns appropriately. It explained that a boiler would only be replaced if it could not be fixed and was “completely beyond use despite any other intervention”. It said whilst there had been a high number of repairs to the boiler, each problem tended to be unrelated to the previous repair, and the heating and hot water had been left working after each repair. It said the contractor would carry out further checks to prevent another breakdown.
8. The resident continued to experience problems with the boiler after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been completed. The landlord’s records for 4 March 2022 say that it had been told by the resident that the contractor had conducted a survey to ascertain what the problem was and was going to ask the landlord to replace the boiler. The landlord said it would contact the contractor as it had not been informed of this.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident has referred to historical issues with her boiler going back over six years.  However, she did not raise a formal complaint until 29 September 2021. Under paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore this assessment will not investigate the full six year period raised.
10. When a resident reports that there may be a systemic issue with an appliance the landlord should investigate and provide the resident with its conclusions in a timely manner. In this case, when the resident raised her complaint on 29 September 2021 the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the contractor to request the repair history for the resident’s boiler. The contractor provided records that showed that there had been a number of different reasons for the reports and that it had addressed those reasons each time. Low pressure was recorded a number of times but it explained that there had been different reasons for the low pressure, which it had also addressed. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors and the contractor’s response to the reports was also in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy which states that it will “normally repair rather than replace individual elements.”
11. Similarly, the landlord’s decision not to replace the boiler was also based on the opinion of its contractor and was also in line with its responsive repairs policy which states “…where either the repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective, then [it] will replace the element. The decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what we will replace it with, will be made at [its] discretion.” As the contractor had not indicated that a replacement boiler was needed, the landlord’s decision not to replace the boiler was reasonable.
12. The landlord also acted appropriately in its stage one complaint response by agreeing that the contractor would continue to investigate the issues with the boiler, which is the outcome the resident said she sought when she raised the complaint.
13.  In its stage two response on 14 November 2021 the landlord agreed with its stage one complaint response and explained that it would only take a decision to replace the boiler if it could not be fixed with a part or a standard repair and was “completely beyond use despite any other intervention”. It said its contractor had confirmed that previous issues had been rectified at the time of visit and that the entire system had since been checked and no leaks were visible. As it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its contractor and they had still not advised that the boiler should be replaced, this was an appropriate stance for the landlord to take. It also acted appropriately by arranging for the contractor to carry out further checks to try to prevent another breakdown.
14. In her escalation request the resident asked to be compensated for damage to her carpet that a radiator leak had caused. The landlord stated this had not been included in her original complaint. It was not clear from the resident’s email when the leak occurred, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to say this issue had not been raised in the original complaint.
15. However, it would have been helpful if the landlord had also explained that its compensation policy stated that it is expected that customers would have their own household insurance to cover that type of damage and that it would only be responsible for paying compensation if it were at fault and had “done something or failed to do something that caused the leak.”
16. The resident advised this Service that she would like compensation for the expense of having to use electric heaters. This was not raised with the landlord during the complaints process. The contractor’s repairs history shows that portable heaters were supplied to the resident In July 2021 when a repair had to be delayed due to the resident self-isolating. However, as the reason for the delay was outside the landlord’s control and the resident did not raise the issue during the complaints process it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to consider compensation.
17. Though it was no doubt frustrating for the resident to have to report the issues with the boiler to the landlord, this Service is satisfied that the landlord acted appropriately. There was no evidence of a systemic issue with the boiler and therefore there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
18. It is noted that the resident has since reported further issues with the boiler and has informed the landlord that the contractor said it would advise the landlord to replace the boiler. This Service will therefore recommend that the landlord replace the boiler if that is what the contractor has recommended.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that, if the contractor has advised the landlord to replace the boiler, the landlord should make arrangements to replace the boiler, if it has not already done so.