Trafford Housing Trust Limited (201914651)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914651

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

28 January 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 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 multiple requests for repair works to the resident’s heating system.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 25 June 2018. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The landlord employs a gas subcontractor to carry out repair works on heating systems at its properties.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy, which notes it seeks to “continuously improve performance, afford residents the highest levels of satisfaction, and provide services that gives Value for Money.”

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided this service with its repair logs for the property, which note that the resident initially reported a fault with her heating system to the landlord on 14 December 2018. On 11 October 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord concerning the number of visits its gas subcontractor had made to her property to address the ongoing problems with her heating system. She further complained that the issue had still not been fixed. The landlord’s repair logs note that between the initial report and the formal complaint, its gas subcontractor had attended the property on nine occasions to address issues with the heating system.
  2. The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 October 2019. It apologised for the service the resident had received from its gas subcontractor and advised that “this sort of thing will not happen again.” It also advised that the gas subcontractor had confirmed the heating system was now working, and that the remaining parts would be fitted on 23 October 2019.
  3. On 30 October 2019, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. She advised that her “boiler is still not fully fixed.” She also advised that her complaint was about the number of call outs she had had to make regarding the same issue, which was not addressed in the landlord’s stage one response. She further advised that between the gas subcontractor’s visits on 14 October 2019 and 16 October 2019, she had been left “without any hot water or heating.” Regarding the appointment booked for 23 October 2019, she advised it had been cancelled by the gas subcontractor 30 minutes prior to the appointment time due to a missing part. She also advised that the gas subcontractor had told her it would call her to arrange a further appointment, which it did not do.
  4. On 12 November 2019, the resident referred her complaint to this service. She advised that, since the landlord’s stage one response, there had been a cancelled appointment on 23 October 2019, an appointment which was unsuccessful due to the parts ordered being incorrect on 24 October 2019, a failed appointment on 30 October 2019 due to her not being informed about the appointment and subsequently not being home, and an appointment booked for 4 November 2019 which the gas subcontractor did not attend. Of these, the landlord’s repair logs only note the failed appointment on 30 October 2019. She noted that the gas subcontractor had also not made any further attempts to make an appointment.
  5. The landlord provided its stage two response on 26 November 2019. It again apologised and advised there were “lessons to be learned” from its “failed appointments and a lack of communicating effectively with you at all times.” It confirmed that a further appointment had been made for 2 December 2019 to complete the repair works to the resident’s heating system. It further agreed to pay compensation of £280, being £20 for 14 visits regarding the issue, “to recognise the inconvenience caused to you.” The landlord’s repair logs only indicate there were 12 visits relating to this issue up to this point.
  6. On 10 February 2020, the resident contacted this service and advised that “since November there have been another 6 call outs and still the radiator has the same fault.” The landlord’s repair logs note there were five further visits over this period. On 28 February 2020, the resident confirmed that “all works are now complete.”

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes it seeks to “continuously improve performance, afford residents the highest levels of satisfaction, and provide services that gives Value for Money.” Given that the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction in her initial complaint at the amount of visits that had occurred for the same issue, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised in its initial response for the service she had received, and advised that it would seek to improve its service based on this experience. It was also appropriate that the landlord set out a clear timeframe that the works would be completed.
  2. Given that the resident subsequently reported that the issue was ongoing, and that her complaint was also about the amount of visits as well as the issues with her heating system, which she had not felt was addressed sufficiently in the landlord’s initial response, it was appropriate that it escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its internal complaints procedure.
  3. Given that the resident had noted in her correspondence with the landlord that the gas subcontractor had failed to arrange further appointments following its failed appointments in October and November 2019, it was appropriate that the landlord made a further apology in its stage two response and noted that it would learn from its “lack of communicating effectively with you at all times.” It was also appropriate that it again gave a timeframe for when works would be completed.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy notes that it will seek to provide “value for money” with its approach to repairs, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is not achieved by multiple repairs for the same issue, without an explanation as to why the issue continued to occur. It is important for the landlord/tenant relationship for the resident to be able to trust that the landlord will effectively carry out its repair responsibility, which in this case has not been achieved by the multiple visits and failed appointments. It is not evident that the landlord communicated any reason for the issue to remain ongoing, and the number of visits for the same issue demonstrate that it has not provided a level of service that the resident would expect. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord accepted it had failed to provide this level of service in its stage two response, and it was also appropriate that it offered an amount of compensation. It is not evident that the landlord operates a compensation policy, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered for the number of visits at the time of the landlord’s stage two response was reasonable, proportionate to the circumstances and inconvenience caused, and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in this type of situation.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has advised this service that there were a number of further repair visits following the landlord’s stage two response, which is corroborated by the landlord’s repair logs. As the landlord has not had an opportunity to consider these further events under its own formal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman has not considered these or made any findings in relation to what has happened after the landlord issued its final response. However, the Ombudsman notes that it is not evident that the landlord has advised its position as to whether further compensation is necessary for the ongoing visits on the same issue.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaint regarding its response to multiple requests for repair works to the resident’s heating system.

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint and apologised accordingly, setting out how it would improve its service based on the experience. It recognised its service was not in line with what the resident would expect and appropriately offered compensation, which was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in these circumstances. Whilst it would have been helpful if the landlord had offered a fuller explanation of what had happened and why so many visits were required, the Ombudsman considers that its offer of compensation was reasonable redress for this complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to advise its position on compensation for the further missed appointments following its stage two response, if it has not done so already.