Victory Housing Trust (202104194)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104194

Victory Housing Trust

21 December 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

This complaint is about.
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
2. The landlord’s response to a request for compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured short hold tenant of the landlord living in a 1-bedroom bungalow.
The landlord has on record that the resident suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety disorder, depression and a metal fused in her lower back which has caused nerve damage in her left leg.
The resident moved into the property on 26 October 2020 and the boiler was re-commissioned on 28 October 2020.

Summary of events

The landlord confirmed it had suffered a serious cyber-attack, between 30 October 2020 and 1 November 2020 which resulted in the necessity to shut down all systems completely to prevent further damage.
On 1 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to advise she had no heating or hot water. She also advised that the shower in the wet room had a blockage in the drain in the floor and the stagnant residue smelt bad. She advised she could not live in these conditions given her medical needs.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord noted that the resident was currently away from her property but arranged access for the landlord and contractor. The resident noted the contractor had advised that there was a fault with a switch on her boiler and a new one would need to be ordered and replaced. It confirmed the resident was left with fan heaters, but the resident was eager to get a timeframe on when the work would be completed so she could heat the property. The landlord also requested a job be raised to look at the drain. The landlord’s internal notes from the contractor visit reflected what the resident advised.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord requested an update on the work from the contractor. It also advised the contractor to let it know when it would be visiting the property next so that it could look at the drain. The landlord confirmed that the blocked shower drain was repaired subsequent to a short delay on or around the date of 6 November 2020.
The resident emailed on 9 November 2020 to request a reduction in her rent as she had only had heating and hot water for four hours since she moved into the property on 26 October 2020. She reiterated that the lack of heating and hot water exacerbated her health problems. The resident was concerned with the lack of urgency to get her boiler repaired by the landlord. The landlord responded the same day to confirm her contact details and advised that once the oil boiler was repaired, she could raise a complaint or apply for a discretionary payment. The resident responded that she would not be returning to the property until the boiler had been fixed. She confirmed the contractor would be able to access the property as she had left the keys.
On 13 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord explaining that the contractor had not kept her updated. The contractor arrived at the property unannounced that week and she was not at the property. The contractor arranged to fix the boiler on 13 November 2020 and the resident made arrangements for it to have access to her property whilst she was away. The contractor did not attend the property as agreed. When she contacted it, it advised it could come the following day. The resident advised that the two small room heaters and no hot water were inadequate and requested to raise a complaint.
The landlord’s records show that an appointment was undertaken on 14 November 2020. The contractor confirmed that the boiler kept tripping on the switchboard although the fuse was fine, and no water was getting into the electrical components. The contractor’s notes state an oil engineer was required to investigate the matter further.
On 25 November 2020 the contactor attended the property however the part it brought did not match the appliance. The contractor advised that valves would be replaced and that would fix the problem. The resident contacted the landlord noting she was advised by the contractors that the boiler could not be commissioned without enough oil, and she had supplied this the day after her tenancy began on 27 October 2020. She explained she had to research the boiler to help the initial engineer try to fix it. She noted her neighbour had been making herself available, but the contractor did not attend that week. The resident had the contractor’s supervisor’s number and was expecting them to attend on Friday. The resident raised her concerns as she felt this issue should have been resolved prior to her moving in.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 27 November 2020 to provide her with an update. It emailed her on 2 December 2020 to confirm a good time to call her to discuss the matter.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord recorded that a visit was arranged for a survey appointment that day between 8am and 11am. The resident advised the surveyor to arrange the appointment directly with her neighbour. The neighbour provided access and the contractor noted that due to the jobs already planned for the following week, it could attend to complete the repair on 14 December 2020.
On 3 December 2020 the landlord arranged a call with the resident to discuss her complaint and the issues she had raised. The resident confirmed during the call that one of the engineers advised that the boiler could not have been commissioned on the day her tenancy started due to the boiler constantly loosing pressure. She felt that the landlord was responsible for covering her costs for alternative accommodation. The resident refused to stay at the property for the installation as she did not believe the contractors would attend and her temporary accommodation was too far for her to make the trip. The landlord offered the resident heaters to stay in her home and that she currently had hot water however the resident declined this. The resident advised that she was currently paying £50 a day for her alternative accommodation.
Following the telephone call, on 4 December 2020 the landlord requested information from the contractor regarding its visits, the cost to run the 2000w heaters the resident was given and to query why it took so long for them to establish that the boiler was unable to be fixed and put through as condemned.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 7 December 2020, and it communicated this to the resident who advised that she did not want to come back and forth to the property during the Christmas period. The landlord advised it would speak to the contractor about arranging the appointment after Christmas. The resident also wanted to ask the contractors about their process. The landlord explained that it would not pay for the resident’s alternative accommodation (totalling £2000), but it would pay for the fence and the oil.
On 7 December 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns with the length of time it has taken to complete the repair to the boiler and restore heating. It noted following the commission of the boiler there had been several visits from the contractor, but the boiler failed to stay functioning and as such the resident chose to stay in alternative accommodation as the property was too cold. On 27 November 2020 the boiler was condemned, and a new air pump installation was arranged for 14 December 2020. The landlord confirmed it would update the resident on 21 December 2020 on the progress of the five-day installation. The landlord also confirmed that the resident was offered heaters at the beginning of the tenancy, but the resident declined this due to concerns over the running costs. It also confirmed the resident did have access to hot water through the immersion tank. As part of the complaint the resident had mentioned that she had to pay to fix the fence and felt this should have been dealt with by the landlord when the previous tenant vacated the property. The landlord offered the resident £155 for the fence and £325 to reimburse the resident for the oil.
The resident returned to the property on 14 December 2020 and found that there were boxes and parts for the replacement heating and the property was freezing and there was no water. She said she found everything piled on her bed and obstructions which meant she was unable to open cupboards or her wardrobe. She queried how the landlord had expected her to live in the property whilst the repairs were being carried out. As a result, she had to leave the property and rent a room elsewhere.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord noted that no rent was received. The contractor confirmed that dust sheets were put to cover the resident’s property and boxes were moved away from the radiators to create a safe working environment, but nothing was boxed up and nothing was put on the bed. The contractor sent the landlord photos which conflicted what the resident had noted. The landlord reiterated that it would not cover the resident’s costs for alternative accommodation, but it would consider covering the cost of the accommodation when the resident returned on the evening of 14 December 2020. The landlord requested that the contractor leave gas heaters at the property and asked it if there was anything else preventing the resident from staying at the property whilst the works were completed. The landlord also noted conflicting information about when the resident was returning to the property which it would have made allowances for. The contractor confirmed that works were expected to be completed on 18 December 2020.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord emailed the resident confirming the installation would be completed that day. It explained that the contractor provided photos which supported its statement on how the resident’s property was arranged to allow access to the radiators and that the condition of the property was not altered through this process. The landlord explained it would not do any additional cleaning other than the areas directly affected by the boiler installation.
On 4 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord explaining as it was already aware, she had been in a serious road traffic accident on 15 December 2020. The resident went to her property on 3 January 2020 and found it had been left in an unacceptable state by the contractor including a broken electric socket left at the front door. The resident provided photos of this. The resident advised she had spoken with a solicitor about the situation. She advised although she was provided with two electric heaters, the drains were still blocked in the shower therefore she would not have been able to use it as this would result in water flowing into the hallway and kitchen area. She requested the landlord take full responsibility of its failings.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord issued its first response. It reiterated information that was sent to the resident in the email of 7 December 2020. The landlord confirmed that the contractor had provided photos of how the residents belongings were stored and it referred to her email of 4 January 2021 regarding photo evidence of the state she found the property received, advising it had not received these. The landlord advised that the resident had been offered heaters which she declined and that the £480 redress was its final offer.
On 25 January 2021 the resident requested to escalate her complaint and the landlord acknowledged this the same day but explained that it would only be able to do this if she had not instructed a solicitor. If she had, the landlord would need to refer this matter to the legal team. It asked her for confirmation if she wanted to proceed.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord escalated the complaint upon the resident’s request for a review.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord issued its second response. The response agreed with the findings at the first stage response and maintained the compensation amount previously offered.
On 1 March 2021 the resident requested to appeal the landlord final response. She advised that she had referred the case to her local MP.
An appeal hearing was arranged for 17 March 2021. During the meeting the resident confirmed her concerns and added that there was a hole left where the old boiler had been on the outside wall which was sorted a week after the installation. The resident mentioned that two fan heaters were provided, but after trying to connect them, one of the heaters was found to be faulty and that she previously advised the landlord of this. The resident explained she was advised that her rent would be covered between October 2020 and December 2020. She is now in arrears and has to pay £500 a month due to the advice given and now her housing benefit and universal credit will not cover her monthly payment. Following the hearing, the landlord explained that it would provide the resident with a response within 5 working days by email and in the post.
Following the hearing, the landlord maintained that the outcome established at the second stage was correct and no further compensation would be provided.

Assessment and findings

There is no record to confirm if or when the drain in the shower was investigated by the landlord however the landlord has confirmed this repair to be completed on or around the date of 6 November 2020. The landlord’s repair policy indicates that it would be responsible for any blocked drains. The internal notes show that the landlord did make note of this issue when the resident first contacted it on 1 November 2020. Although the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the repair was completed by 6 November 2020, this date is accepted as there is no further correspondence between the parties post this date, noting any issue persists. When taking into account the cyber-attack suffered; the nature of the repair was still that of an emergency repair, therefore there is an expectation that it was resolved sooner than the date of 6 November 2020.
The resident advised only one of the two heaters provided was working however I cannot see evidence that this was mentioned to the landlord prior to the hearing of 17 March 2021. Therefore, the landlord was not given the opportunity to resolve this aspect during the repairs.
Whilst the landlord offered the resident heaters, there would still have been issues around access to hot water as there was a delay in rectifying the drain in the shower. The landlord’s resolution was not sufficient, and it would be unreasonable for the resident to stay in the property without access to wash facilities for the length of time it took to replace the boiler. It is noted there was no mention of access to hot water in the house such as in the kitchen. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s health issues which would have been aggravated by the cold. Therefore, the landlord should have taken more care to ensure that the matter was swiftly resolved given weather conditions at the time of the year.
It is unclear why it was not recognised that a new boiler was required earlier following the contractor’s multiple visits. There are no notes to clearly explain this, and the Ombudsman has not been provided with a record of all the visits as requested by the landlord from the contractor. The landlord explained the reason for the delay was due to the contractor not having access to the property however the evidence indicates the contractors were accessing the resident’s property whilst she was not there. Therefore, this would not be a reasonable reason as to why the decision to condemn the boiler was delayed.
Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a breakdown showing which jobs are classed as an emergency repair and which as non-emergency, lack of heating and hot water especially in the months in which this issue arose, would be considered as an emergency repair, requiring an appointment within 24 hours. The contractor visited within 24 hours and contingencies were put in place for the heating by providing the resident with heaters.
With regards to the issues around the state of the property upon the residents return on 14 December 2020, although the photos have not been provided, it is reasonable that the landlord made its judgement of the state of the property based on the evidence the contractor provided. Although the resident advised she had photos, these do not appear to have been provided to the landlord.
The work to replace the boiler started on 14 December 2020 and the contractors had to bring in their equipment and make the environment work safe as well as ensure that the resident’s property was protected. The resident had indicated that she would only be returning to the property after the work was completed however, she did return on the evening the work began. As the landlord was unaware of the residents return, it did not have the opportunity to ensure the property was ready for her by checking with the contractor that it was safe and in a reasonable state for her to stay. Therefore, I am unable to fairly say that there was any service failure from the landlord with regards to this aspect.
The landlord reimbursed the resident with £325 for the oil. The Service has not been provided with evidence of the initial cost to the resident to put oil in the boiler when she first moved in and furthermore has not seen a breakdown of the £325 cost for anything other than the cost for the oil. There is no detail within the landlord’s policies around the calculation of compensation for loss of heating/hot water facilities. Neither is there evidence to suggest the landlord in its offer of redress, took into consideration the length of time it took to have the boiler replaced or the stress and inconvenience caused.
The resident had requested that the landlord cover the cost of her alternative accommodation. The resident did not have any agreement with the landlord about covering the costs of the accommodation prior to moving, therefore there is no obligation for the landlord to cover this. The resident has also mentioned that she was advised by the landlord that it would cover her rent between October 2020 and December 2020 although the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support this. I do agree that the landlord should have considered a discretionary payment for the period that she was without heating and wash facilities.
The landlord’s discretionary payment policy is vague as there is no clear detail about when discretionary payments will be considered and how this would be calculated as such the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance has been considered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to a request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

Although the landlord advised the resident she had access to a working hot water shower, there was a delay in rectifying the issue with the blocked drain in the shower taking into consideration the date of 6 November 2020. Due to the resident’s health issues, accepted by the landlord, the requirement to have heating and hot water was particularly important during the winter months. The landlord should have ensured that the drain was repaired sooner than the date of 6 November 2020 whilst taking into consideration mitigating circumstances of a cyber-attack in order for the resident to have access to the shower.
There was an unreasonable delay in resolving the boiler issues for a considerable period of time and the landlord failed to correctly address this.
Whilst the landlord reimbursed the resident for the oil, and the fence, the landlord should have also considered the delay in replacing the boiler and the inconvenience this caused to the resident. The landlord has not provided a clear breakdown of the redress it offered to show what aspects were considered in the redress other than the cost of the oil and the fence.

Orders

In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident;
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £150 for the delay in getting the boiler replaced.
3. £25 for its failure to address the blocked drains.
4. £50 for its handling of the complaint particularly with regards to the breakdown of compensation and failure to address the blocked drain in the shower.

This is in addition to the £480 already offered.

The landlord should review its policy documents and update these with more detailed and thorough advice on its processes and procedures.
The landlord should provide further training to its staff on complaint handling to ensure that all issues are addressed.