Tower Hamlets Homes (202200036)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200036

Tower Hamlets Homes

26 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about delayed repairs to the heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident first reported a complete loss of heating on 26 October 2021. The landlord’s contractors attended the same day, and while investigating, they identified a defective pump that needed to be replaced; however, the approval for the new pump was mismanaged, which caused a significant delay. In January 2022, the resident reported that the issue was ongoing, and he was promised an update on 12 January 2022, which he did not receive.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 January 2022 as he had been without heating for three months during winter. He was dissatisfied with the delays and the lack of communication from the landlord. He had also been promised call-backs which had not happened. This caused the resident to expend time and trouble chasing updates. The resident further reported that he lived with his partner and two young children, and that he was affected by health concerns, and that the loss of heating had adverse effects on his health.
  4. The landlord’s contractors replaced the faulty pump on 21 January 2022. However, while undertaking these works, they identified that the plate heat exchangers (PHEX) also required replacement to fully repair the heating system.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 January 2022 to query whether the heating system was working following the contractors’ works. The resident reported that the hot water was intermittent, and the heating was still not working.
  6. In its stage one response, issued on 20 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, which it attributed to several administration errors throughout the authorisation process for the replacement pump. The landlord further explained that only when the contractors attended to replace the defective pump was it identified that the PHEX were blocked and needed to be replaced, causing a further delay. The landlord informed the resident that it was changing its contractors on 1 February 2022, but it assured him that this would not cause any further delays. Finally, the landlord offered £303 compensation for the loss of heating, calculated at £3 per day, and a further £30 for intermittent hot water issues.
  7. The landlord changed its contractors on 1 February 2022, who shortly after advised they would need to reinvestigate the boiler as they were not familiar with the issue. The resident subsequently expressed his frustration that the works had not been correctly handed over. Nevertheless, an appointment was scheduled for 16 February 2022. The resident asked contractors to attend between 8am and 10am as he was not staying at the property. Due to traffic, the contractors failed to attend the resident’s property at the scheduled time. The contractors offered to attend later that day, however, the resident was unavailable. Another appointment was therefore scheduled on 22 February 2022.
  8. On 22 February 2022, the contractors cleaned the strainer in the boiler and offered, as an interim solution, to remove the PHEX to chemically clean them in order to restore the hot water. The contractors advised this would take between one to two days, during which the resident would be without hot water. The resident was apprehensive this timeframe would not be kept to and so refused. The contractors advised the resident that the new PHEX would be delivered in two weeks.
  9. It is not evident that the landlord offered the resident temporary heaters, leading to the resident having to make a request. The landlord provided two temporary fan heaters to the resident on 25 February 2022.
  10. On 1 March 2022, the landlord discussed a decant as requested by the resident. The landlord decline the request on the basis that the resident had refused the interim solution offered and that the replacement PHEX was less than two weeks away. It is not evident that this was communicated to the resident.
  11. The contractors installed the new PHEX on 9 March 2022. However, after the PHEX had been replaced, the resident reported that the heating system was still faulty. Therefore, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint, which was acknowledged 11 working days after his request.
  12. In its stage two response, issued on 15 March 2022, the landlord reiterated its apology for the delays and the inconvenience caused. It acknowledged that its contractors had attended on multiple occasions but could not resolve the issue. The landlord advised that it would continue its investigation and arrange a joint inspection of the boiler between itself and its contractors. The landlord also explained that further compensation would be awarded, which would be calculated once works were completed.
  13. Subsequently, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 25 March 2022 to conduct the joint inspection, but the resident’s partner advised that the hot water was now working and refused access to the contractors.
  14. On 7 April 2022, the resident reported to this service that the issues were still ongoing and it is evident that the resident continued to liaise with the contractors regarding this issue. It is unclear, however, as to whether the landlord was kept informed about the ongoing issues.
  15. The contractors attended again on 9 May 2022, and replaced the boiler, which fixed the intermittent hot water issues. The contractors verbally advised the resident that an electrician was required to reinstate the heating and that a further appointment would be arranged.
  16. It is not evident that such an appointment was booked, leading to a period of delay, before the resident raised further concerns directly with the landlord. A further inspection was carried out on 13 July, and works to reinstate the heating were completed on 18 July 2022.
  17. At this time, the landlord offered compensation of £1,175.75 in recognition of the loss of heating and intermittent hot water and the distress suffered because of the delay. Around this time, the landlord’s internal communications indicate that the heating systems for the block are turned off between May and September, however, it is not evident the resident is aware of this practice.
  18. In August 2022, the resident reported to this service that the heating was not still not working and that during the works to replace the boiler, his kitchen flooring had been damaged.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that the landlord is responsible for heating and hot water repairs. The policy identifies two main categories of general repairs, namely routine repairs and emergency repairs. The latter is to be responded to within two hours to make the resident’s property safe, with additional works to be completed within 24 hours.
  2. Emergency repairs are described as those that have serious effects on people or damage to the home, including complete loss of heating and hot water in winter. The repair policy also specifies that an emergency action in such cases may be the provision of temporary heating.
  3. The Responsive Repairs Policy also has a commitment to missed appointments. It specifies that missed appointments cost time and money, and the landlord will take all reasonable steps to minimise these and to keep residents informed throughout the repairs process to assist in this. The policy also states that the landlord will compensate tenants for these in the form of a £10 voucher.
  4. The Responsive Repairs Policy states that where works are not completed within the set timeframe the landlord will be liable to pay compensation to the tenant at the prescribed rate (current level of £10 plus £2 per day) for every full or part day that the repair remains outstanding, after the end of the second prescribed period to a maximum of £50.

Heating system repairs

  1. Following the resident’s initial reports in October 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended on the same day to investigate the issue. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy. However, after the contractors attended and identified the defective pump, it ultimately took three months to be replaced. While the Ombudsman understands that such delays can be reasonable in some instances, as it may take time to get replacement parts, the delay in this case was due to an administrative failure in the approval process. The landlord appropriately acknowledged these errors in its stage one response and apologised. It also offered compensation in recognition of these errors, which is discussed further below.
  2. On 21 January 2022, the contractors attended the resident’s property, and while replacing the defective pump, they found that the PHEX also needed to be replaced. While it would have been frustrating for the resident that this further issue was not identified during the initial inspection in October 2021, the Ombudsman notes that it can take more than one attempt to resolve certain repairs, and in some cases, further investigation may need to be undertaken before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. In this instance, the landlord appropriately explained the requirement for new PHEX to the resident on 24 January 2022.
  3. In its stage one response, the landlord informed the resident that it was changing contractors. The Ombudsman considers that changing contractors is reasonable and to be expected from time to time, and that in such instances, while frustrating, duplicate inspections may be required. In this instance, however, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that this changeover would not cause any delays to the works. In reality, the new contractors did need to carry out their own investigations, and it is not evident that the previous contractors ordered the new PHEX, which led to further delays. This caused additional frustration for the resident given that he had been led to believe this would not be necessary.
  4. As noted above, the landlord’s repairs policy states that when a resident’s heating isn’t working, especially during winter, an emergency action would be the provision of temporary heating. At the time of the resident’s initial reports in October 2021, despite being made aware of the resident’s health conditions and that he had young children, it is not evident that the landlord offered temporary heating. This left the resident without functioning heating throughout the winter. Following the resident’s request for temporary heating, the landlord made enquiries with its current contractors, who advised they had verbally offered the resident temporary heating, but that he had declined. This position is disputed by the resident, and should this have been the case, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to confirm this position in writing, which it did not do. Additionally, while the landlord eventually provided temporary heating, the Ombudsman considers it best practice in such instances for a landlord to provide its position on reimbursing the energy costs for running the heaters, which the landlord did not do.
  5. The Ombudsman considers it best practice to investigate whether an interim solution is possible where there are delays to works. In this instance, the contractors offered to chemically clean the PHEX as an interim solution while awaiting the replacement PHEX. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s decision to decline this offer based on the earlier instances of errors and delays, it was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to offer this interim solution, which it reiterated on a number of occasions.
  6. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify when a decant may be considered, however, the Ombudsman notes the landlord’s senior staff considered the resident’s request and the decision to decline the request based on the resident’s refusal of interim works, the short time left until the repairs were completed, and the fact the hot water was still working intermittently were reasonable. Nevertheless, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it would respond to this request, however, it is not evident it did so. This would have left the resident frustrated and unclear about whether his request had been considered.
  7. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was also concerned about the landlord’s contractors failing to arrive between an agreed upon timeframe. The Ombudsman appreciates this would have been frustrating for the resident, however, in this instance, the landlord’s operative provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, offered an alternative time the same day, and subsequently arranged a further appointment at a time convenient for the resident. In the circumstances, this attempt to resolve the missed appointment was reasonable and would not amount to service failure.
  8. The landlord replaced the PHEX on 9 March 2022, however, the resident subsequently reported that issues with the heating continued. Given the ongoing nature of the issue, the landlord appropriately arranged for a detailed inspection between both the contractors experts, and its own, and also appropriately deferred a further offer of compensation until the works were completed. Upon arriving for the detailed inspection, it is reported that the resident’s partner advised the issue was solved. Following this, it is not evident that the landlord finalised its position, or made an offer of compensation. The resident has reported that the issue was not solved, and that he continued to liaise with the contractors, and their heating subcontractors for many months following the stage two response. It is not evident, however, that the landlord was made aware by its contractors that the issue was ongoing, demonstrating a further failing in its communication and record keeping processes. Had it offered its final position, the landlord may have been made aware that the issue was ongoing, however, it failed to do so.
  9. This breakdown in communication and record keeping was compounded by the contractor’s failure to arrange for an electrician to connect the new boiler. While it is evident the landlord was not directly aware of this need, the Ombudsman considers the contractor to be an extension of the landlord and for it to have appropriate procedures for communication in place, and so this failure was nevertheless unreasonable.
  10. Having been finally made aware of the issue in July 2022, the landlord appropriately arranged for the necessary works. The landlord also provided an updated offer of £1,175.75 compensation, which it broke down as follows: £621 for the loss of heating, £174.75 for the intermittent hot water, and £380 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This was based on the periods without heating and with intermittent hot water, taking into account that heating is switched off in the block from May to September.
  11. In summary, following the resident’s initial reports, its administrative errors led to a significant delay in approving necessary repair works. It also failed to offer temporary heaters throughout this period. Having eventually provided them, the landlord subsequently failed to outline its position on reimbursing the costs of running the heaters. Having identified its error regarding arranging for the replacement pump, and subsequently identifying further works, the landlord failed to correctly hand over the works to its new contractor, or otherwise unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations that further inspections would not be required. While the landlord carried out a reasonable consideration of the resident’s request for a decant, it subsequently failed to provide its response. Finally, while there was initially confusion in March 2022 as to whether the works were completed, the landlord failed to provide its position on compensation, and also failed to adequately communicate with its contractors leading to a lengthy delay in the electrical installations for the new boiler being completed.
  12. These cumulative failings led to a significant period for the resident without adequate heating or hot water, which would have caused significant distress. In the circumstances, these failings amount to maladministration by the landlord. The Ombudsman advises that this would have been a finding of severe maladministration had the landlord not identified and apologised for some of its failings, offered interim works, and offered some level of compensation which recognised the impact on the resident.
  13. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the offer of compensation is not sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has appropriately used its discretion to offer compensation relating to the loss of heating and hot water in excess of the £50 cap in its policy. The amount offered for distress and inconvenience, however, does not accurately reflect the level of distress caused to the resident. Based on the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated causing him to expend time and trouble chasing updates, its poor internal communication and record keeping, and it unreasonably raising the resident’s expectations, only to result in further delays, an additional amount of £300 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances.
  14. The landlord, after works had been completed on 18 July 2022, revised the compensation and offered the resident an amount of £1,175.75, calculated at £3 per day, £0.75 per day for the intermittent hot water issues and £10 per week for distress and inconvenience. By offering additional compensation, the landlord had appropriately attempted to put things right; however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered is insufficient and not in line with the Ombudsman policy. Furthermore, given that the landlord provided temporary heaters, it should have provided its position on further compensation for the additional electricity usage.
  15. The Ombudsman further notes that as of August 2022, the resident has tested his heating and found that it is still not working. It is not evident that this has yet been reported to the landlord. Given that the landlord’s internal communications indicate that the heating may have been switched off at the time of the resident’s test, a recommendation has been made that the landlord provide further information about the heating operation schedule, or otherwise offer to carry out a further inspection of the heating.
  16. Additionally, the resident has reported that his floor was damaged during some of the works. It is not evident that this has been reported to the landlord and so is outside the scope of this investigation. The resident should report this concern to the landlord in the first instance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about delayed repairs to the heating system.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,475.75 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures relating to the repairs to the heating system.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,175.75. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to review its current communication and record keeping procedures in relation to its contractors and provide evidence to this service that such a review has taken place.
  4. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination, and include the following:
    1. its position on compensating the costs of running the temporary heaters;
    2. provide further information about the heating operation schedule, or otherwise offer to carry out a further inspection of the heating;
    3. request further information about the resident’s concerns about damage to his floor.