Wolverhampton City Council (201912244)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912244

Wolverhampton City Council

5 February 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of the costs incurred from the use of temporary electrical heaters.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to her tumble dryer.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period”, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  3. From the evidence that has been provided for this investigation, the resident explained that a leak reported to the landlord in January 2020 caused “unrepairable” damage to her tumble dryer. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised about the damage until September 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 39(e), the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water damage to her tumble dryer.

 Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident it a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

  1. On 7 December 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water or heating. According to the resident’s correspondence, she was provided “on that date with two fan heaters”.
  2. On 11 December 2019 the resident made a formal complaint. She said that she had not had any heating or hot water for almost a week. She also said she had financially been “put out of pocket” from having spent £40 to run the heaters.
  3. On 23 December 2019 a new boiler was installed.
  4. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord sent two stage one responses, one on 3 January 2020 and the other on 7 January 2020 (they did not differ in any meaningful way). It is unknown which one was received by the resident. In its response, the landlord apologised to the resident and explained why the boiler had not been fixed straight away. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the cost incurred from the electrical heaters.
  5. The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. On 11 February 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response. She said she had sent evidence to the landlord showing how she had used twice the energy to warm her property as she waited for the boiler repair. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. Her principal concern was the “financial out of pocket expenses over this period”.
  7. On 17 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It rejected the resident’s claim for reimbursement for the temporary heating costs but gave no explanation for its decision. It advised the resident to contact the local authority’s insurance services to discuss the matter. It provided the relevant contact details.
  8. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. On 6 May 2020 the landlord forwarded the resident a copy of its stage two complaint response, as it had been made aware that she had not received it in March.
  10. On 26 October 2020, in the landlord’s response to other issues that the resident had raised, it agreed to reimburse the £40 cost she had incurred using the temporary heaters.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not uncommon practice for a landlord to have a compensation policy which includes a section relating to the reimbursement of expenses which have been reasonably incurred by a resident. However, no compensation policy has been provided for this investigation. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord abided by its policy or not.
  2. The resident first requested to be reimbursed for the money she had to spend on electricity for the temporary heaters in her stage one complaint. She immediately set her expectations and made the landlord aware of what action she wanted to resolve her complaint satisfactorily. It was reasonable that the resident would have requested to be reimbursed for this expense, as it was not in response to and damage caused by her, but as a cost incurred from heaters provided by the landlord while she waited for it to repair her boiler. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s request in its stage one complaint response. That was clearly an omission, and a failing.
  3. In the resident’s stage two complaint she stated that she had provided the landlord with proof that she had used “twice the energy” to warm her house, and had attached evidence from her energy provider in her stage one complaint. Having not responded to the issue in its first complaint response, the landlord should have acknowledged that it had received and reviewed this evidence, even if it did not consider it reason enough to reimburse her. Instead, in its stage two response the landlord advised the resident that her request for the electricity used had been rejected and referred her to the local authority “to discuss the matter directly with them”.
  4. The resident’s request for reimbursement was limited and reasonable in the circumstances. As mentioned, it is not uncommon for social landlords to include in their compensation policies guidance on compensating tenants for reasonable costs they experience during delayed repair work. In this case the need for heating was exceptional as it was winter, and over a two-week period. The landlord’s decision to refer her to an insurance claim for such a specific and relatively modest sum of money was not reasonable.
  5. Ten months after the heating costs were incurred the landlord changed its mind and agreed to the reimbursement sought by the resident. It gave no explanation for the changed decision, nor did it acknowledge the excessive delay in making it. It was good that the landlord eventually agreed to the resident’s request, but its action did not fully remedy its failure to properly consider the matter in early 2020.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request of reimbursement for the costs incurred from the use of temporary electrical heaters.

Orders and recommendations

  1. In light of the service failure identified in this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and significant delay she experienced.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.