Together Housing Association Limited (202101314)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101314

Together Housing Association Limited

20 April 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 a repair to the resident’s boiler.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is owned by the landlord. She is represented by a family member in the complaint, and both will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
3. The resident reported to the landlord on 9 December 2020 that her boiler was not functioning correctly and required her to frequently manually restart it. The landlord’s contractor attended the property 35 minutes later than arranged on the repair was scheduled to take place. She made a complaint about this and explained how the situation had impacted on her, in addition, the contractor had denied knowledge of the correct appointment timeslot. She also complained about communication issues with the boiler manufacturer, who attended early on 22 December 2020 for a further appointment.
4. The landlord’s final response, on 29 January 2021, acknowledged that it could have communicated with the resident on 18 December 2020 to advise her of its delayed attendance. It confirmed that the staff involved were indeed aware of the appointment timeslot and that it would take this matter up with the specific staff members but advised that it could not share the outcome of this with her. The landlord acknowledged that it was responsible for the installation and maintenance of the boiler but explained that it was not aware of the arrangements which the resident had made directly with the manufacturer. It therefore did not consider this was a failure on its part and confirmed that the manufacturer had attended within the timescales specified in the terms and conditions of the warranty.
5. The landlord noted that the resident had reported experiencing inconvenience and distress caused by its contractor attending late on 18 December 2020 and apologised for this. It noted that she had experienced an impact on her caring responsibilities but no evidence had been provided to it of the exact nature of the impact on her. The landlord therefore offered £20 compensation to the resident which she accepted. She subsequently brought the complaint to the Ombudsman due to her dissatisfaction with:
   1. The landlord not upholding her complaint about its staff saying that that they had not been given an appointment timeframe.
   2. The level of compensation offered, which she felt was not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience caused to her.
   3. The landlord not taking responsibility for the manufacturer’s management of the appointment on 22 December 2020.  

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for space and water heating.
7. The landlord’s repair priorities webpage states that it will attend emergency repairs which pose an immediate risk to a person of the property within 24 hours; otherwise it will attend a routine repair within 28 days.
8. The landlord’s compensation claim procedure provides for offers of compensation up to £50 for “one instance of mild inconvenience but no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept”. Compensation of £50 to £100 may be offered for “a succession of failures and/or being unresolved within a reasonable time causing a level of distress or inconvenience”. This procedure also states that claims for compensation will not be considered if there is a lack of evidence.

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s boiler

9. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement above, the landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the boiler and therefore it was appropriate for it to arrange for its contractor to inspect the boiler fault reported by the resident on 9 December 2020. Given that the resident did not report a total loss of heating and hot water, which the Ombudsman would consider to be an emergency repair, it was appropriate that it treated the repair as a routine repair. The landlord attended the boiler repair within seven working days of the report, which was a reasonable timeframe and was in accordance with its repair priorities webpage.
10. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 18 December 2020, and the resident subsequently raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 December 2020, as the contractor had arrived for her 12 pm to 4 pm appointment at 4.35 pm, 35 minutes later than scheduled. While this was a failure on its part to attend on time, this would be considered to be “one instance of mild inconvenience”. She said that this had caused her inconvenience and distress as the late arrival had impacted on her caring responsibilities and she relayed that the contractor had said that they had not been provided with the correct appointment timeslot.
11. The resident was unhappy with the contradictory statement from the landlord’s contractor about not being provided with the correct appointment timeslot. It was reasonable for it to confirm in its final complaint response that it would address the matter with its staff but that it would not be able to provide details about this to the resident. The performance of a particular member of staff would be addressed through the landlord’s disciplinary procedures and an individual member of staff is entitled to confidentiality concerning the outcome of these procedures.
12. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the warranty repair of the boiler. As it was under warranty, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the repair was referred promptly to the manufacturer and that the repair was carried out in a reasonable timeframe.
13. The resident’s stage one complaint relayed that she was contacted by the manufacturer on 21 December 2020, who advised that it would attend in the afternoon of the following day and it would call her in the morning to arrange the appointment. The manufacturer called on 22 December 2020 to arrange a morning appointment and subsequently called again to arrange access for 12.45 pm which was agreed by the resident. There was no evidence that the landlord was involved in the making of these arrangements and, given that the resident agreed to provide access for the repair at 12.45 pm which was completed within a reasonable timeframe, there was no failure by the landlord in this regard.
14. When a landlord offers compensation for an identified failure, this should be proportionate to the level of detriment caused to the resident by its failure. As mentioned above, the landlord’s compensation claim procedure provides for offers of compensation up to £50 for “one instance of mild inconvenience but no greater than a reasonably tolerant person could be expected to accept”. Given that there was evidence of only one service failure – that it was late attending the appointment on 18 December 2020 – its offer of £20 compensation was in accordance with its procedure.
15. In her complaint escalation, the resident said that she had experienced “a great deal of inconvenience” and “anxiety and distress [that] lasted for a significant period of time during and after the appointment” but acknowledged that there was no other evidence of this, other than the content of her emails to the landlord. In accordance with its compensation claim procedure, it would need evidence for it to consider an offer of compensation. Its offer of £20 was therefore a reasonable offer of compensation considering the scale of its failure, and it was reasonable that it did not offer a higher level of compensation as there was no evidence provided of a disproportionate level of distress or inconvenience caused by its failure to attend on time on 18 December 2020.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of a repair to the resident’s boiler satisfactorily.