Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited (201913223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913223

Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited

16 December 2020

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

The complaints are about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports that the boiler at the property was not working.
2. Decision not to reimburse the resident for costs they incurred staying at a hotel whilst the boiler was not working.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The resident has advised that she is disabled.
Under section 5.2.c of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the “water heaters, fireplaces, fitted fires and central heating installations” at the property.

The Landlord’s policies

Repairs policy

The landlord’s Repairs policy provides as follows with regards to service standards and response times:
1. Emergency repairs – to be completed within 24 hours
2. Urgent repairs – to be completed within 7 days
3. Routine repairs – to be completed within 28 days
In relation to a loss of heating and hot water, the landlord’s repairs policy provides that where there has been a total loss of heating and hot water between 1 November and 30 April, it will arrange for the job to be completed within 24 hours. Where there is a partial loss of heating or hot water, it will arrange for repairs to be completed within 7 days.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s Complaints policy provides that residents may be reimbursed where it has been necessary to use temporary heating. It says, “where temporary heaters are provided as part of a heating repair or replacement [the landlord] will reimburse up to the value of £25 subject to the resident completing a compensation form and providing evidence of the additional electricity costs”.

Compensation policy

The landlord’s Compensation policy provides that residents have a right to compensation where the landlord – or its agents – has failed to carry out repairs in line with its response times. With regards to the amount payable, it provides:

“5.8 Compensation is payable at a rate of £10 for the first day and £2 per day thereafter that the repair remains outstanding after the end of the period or second period (if routine) up to a maximum of £50.”

Summary of events

On 21 November 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that there was no heating or hot water at the property. The landlord logged the job with its contractor so that an operative could attend to carry out a repair.
The resident says that in the evening of 22 November 2019, she received a call from one of the contractor’s operatives. He was unable to attend that day, and advised that someone would attend the next day.
An operative attended on 23 November; however, he was unable to carry out a repair and a number of parts were required. The repair subsequently took place on 26 November.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November to express her dissatisfaction with how the repair had been handled. The resident said that the landlord’s contractors had failed to attend in response to her report on 21 November, and did not inform her that the repair on 26 November would take place in the afternoon, and not the morning.
A manager emailed the complainant on 28 November and said the following:
1. He was pleased to confirm that the requisite parts could be fitted on 26 November, and that the boiler was working again.
2. Whilst the repair was reported by the resident on 21 November, it was not attended until 23 November – and this fell outside of the landlord’s service standards.
3. He had been informed that an engineer did call the resident on 22 November to explain that he would be able to attend – but he did talk the resident through how to relight the boiler in an attempt to provide a temporary solution.
4. An engineer did attend on 23 November, identified what parts would be required and left temporary heating.
5. On 25 November, the resident was contacted so that an appointment for the repair could be arranged as the parts were due to be in stock the next day. However, the call was terminated before a date could be agreed.
6. The local council contacted the landlord on 26 November, as the resident had been in discussion with staff there. Following this interaction, the landlord made arrangements for its contractor to attend that day.
7. He apologised for the initial delayed response by the contractor. However, the follow on works exceeded its service standards in terms of timeliness and that overall the time taken to assess the fault, obtain the parts and have them fitted was reasonable.
8. The landlord would be working closely with its contractors going forward to ensure that the highest standard of service could be delivered.
The resident responded on 28 November. She said:
1. Nobody from the landlord had been in touch on 22 November. There was a missed call on the landline around 4pm; however, no message had been left.
2. A friend contacted an engineer to reset the boiler. This was after she had been without heating or hot water for two days.
3. She had used a hotel for four nights.
4. She had contacted staff to find out what was happening with the repair.
5. The member of staff who attended on 23 November “did not even touch the boiler” and said that it was to do with the heat exchanger.
6. She did not receive a call until the afternoon of 26 November when an engineer was already outside the property. The engineer had advised that the relevant part was a sensor – not a heat exchanger.
7. She was fed up of being told “lies” and having to pay for hotels as the landlord’s contractor could not “be bothered to even show up”.
The landlord provided a further response on 2 December. It said:
1. It had noted the resident’s comments; however, they did not conflict with the fundamental facts regarding the repair to the boiler.
2. The fault was reported on 21 November, and the repair was completed on 26 November.
3. It was agreed that the service the resident had received fell below the high standard that it strived to achieve; and in light of that the resident had received an apology.
4. It reiterated its intention to work closely with contractors to ensure that service delivery was of the highest standard.
5. It acknowledged that the resident had again reported no heating or hot water that morning and confirmed that an engineer would attend the same day to assess the works required.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December and said that no apology had been received from the contractor, and that it appeared the landlord had finished with the complaint. In response, the landlord advised that a full investigation would be undertaken and a response would be provided by 16 December.
Further complaints correspondence was exchanged, on 4 December the landlord advised as follows:
1. It understood the resident’s concerns had already been responded to via email on 28 November 2019.
2. It accepted that there was service failure as its contractor did not attend the property within 24 hours – a departure from its service standards.
3. An apology was offered in the email of 28 November 2019, and an assurance that the landlord would be working with its contractor to ensure that residents received the highest standard of service.
4. The property was attended on 23 November and it was identified that particular parts would be required to complete the repair. A further attendance took place on 26 November. This was in line with service standards.
5. The resident was offered temporary heating and if this had been used, they would have been offered some contribution towards their bills – on the provision of receipts. It therefore concluded that there was no service failure in relation to the fitting of the required parts.
6. On 2 December, the landlord received an email that the boiler had broken again. This was reported to the contractor.
7. The resident was unavailable on the afternoon of 2 December; so the contractors attended once they had returned to the property. However, on their arrival, the boiler was working as it should – and therefore no works were undertaken.
8. The landlord was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the service they had received. However, it hoped that the explanation in its letter, and the apology offered were satisfactory.
9. In line with its policy, the resident was entitled to £12 for the work not being carried out within 24 hours (£10 plus one day at £2).
The resident replied on 10 December, declining the offer of compensation, she provided a detailed timeline of the events that transpired, and said that the landlord’s response was at odds with what had actually taken place. In her correspondence, the resident said that whilst she had been offered temporary heaters, she was reluctant to accept them as they would not have sufficiently heated the property. The resident added that a fan heater that the landlord had provided previously set fire to the lounge. The resident added that in the circumstances, her hotel bill should be reimbursed by the landlord, as she was without heating for “over 50 hours and hot water for several days”.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 12 December. It said:
1. It accepted that there had been service failure and its contractor failed to attend the property within 24 hours of receiving the report of no heating and hot water.
2. When the contractor did attend on 23 November, it was noted that parts were required. These were ordered and fitted on 26 November – this was in accordance with its service standards.
3. The boiler failed again on 2 December; however, when the contractor attended it was working as it should be.
4. It considered the complaint had been addressed and that the complainant was progressing the matter “unreasonably”; and for that reason, it would not be corresponding further – unless there were material consideration that it had not been made aware of previously.
5. The resident was unhappy with the response and referred the matter to the Ombudsman for formal investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s Repairs policy, as detailed above, sets out its service standards and the response times that should be met by its contractors. When responding to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its contractor had failed to attend the property within 24 hours of receiving a report of no heating and no water. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience that was caused, and offered compensation in line with its compensation policy. This was appropriate.
When the operative did attend on 23 November, he was unable to restore the heating and hot water as parts were needed to complete the boiler repair. It is noted that the resident disputes the landlord’s comments about what part was required, and that she is of the opinion that the repair could have taken place sooner. However, the Ombudsman has seen no contemporaneous evidence which suggests that was the case, or that the repair was unduly delayed.
In response to the complaint, the landlord said that as a repair could not be completed on 23 November, the operative left temporary heating. In her correspondence to the landlord the resident described the heaters as two “unsafe fan heaters”. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had previously experienced a hazardous situation when using a fan heater, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence which confirms that the heaters which were provided were unsafe. As the boiler could not be repaired that day, it was appropriate to leave the resident with some equipment with which they could heat the property. The resident’s comments that the heaters would not have been sufficient to heat the entire property have been noted; however, this was not the intention behind providing temporary heaters. Rather, the heaters would have provided the resident with some heat whilst the boiler repair was outstanding. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer the fan heaters.
The resident informed the landlord and the Ombudsman that she made the decision to stay at a hotel as she could not be without heating or hot water. The resident’s reasons for leaving the property have been noted. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that it was necessary to decant the property – or that it had been rendered uninhabitable as a result of the boiler repair. It is acknowledged that it would have been uncomfortable to stay within the property, and the resident would have been inconvenienced by having to use the fan heaters. However, there was no obligation on the landlord to move the complainant to temporary accommodation in the circumstances and service standards were met with regards to completing the repair after the initial attendance on 23 November. It follows that there is no obligation on the landlord to reimburse the resident for money spent on a hotel stay – or to offer compensation aimed at reimbursing the resident for these costs.
It is acknowledged that some of the events which transpired on between 22 and 26 November, as described by the landlord, have been disputed by the resident. However, as explained by the landlord during the course of the complaint, the substantive matter – that being the failure to attend the property within 24 hours – is not disputed. In response to the complaint, the landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failing, offered the resident compensation in line with its policy and agreed to take steps to ensure that such failings do not occur in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of the complaint regarding its response to resident’s report that the boiler was not working.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no service failure in the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for costs they incurred staying at a hotel whilst the boiler was not working.

Reasons

The landlord’s contractor failed to attend the property within 24 hours of the resident reporting that there was no heating or hot water. This was not appropriate. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this failing when responding to the complaint. It offered the resident an apology, and compensation in line with its policy.
The landlord declined to reimburse the resident costs she had incurred when staying at a hotel whilst the boiler repair was outstanding. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord had offered the resident temporary heaters as the boiler could not be repaired during the first attendance, and explained that some of the costs associated with using the heaters would have been reimbursed if the resident had remained at the property. The boiler repair was not unduly delayed by the landlord, and there is no obligation on the landlord to reimburse the resident for money spent on hotel bills.

Recommendation

Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should reoffer the compensation that was offered during the complaints procedure – if this has not been previously accepted by the resident.