Yorkshire Housing Limited (202117040)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117040

Yorkshire Housing Limited

19 May 2023

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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom window.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, in a one -bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy began in December 2019.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process, where it aims to respond within ten working days at stage one, and within twenty working days at stage two. Prior to this it operates an informal ‘de-escalation’ stage.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for the structure including window frames. It is also responsible for the installation and supply of electricity, but not the meters. The policy says that routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days of reporting and for planned maintenance workstreams, which includes window replacements, there is a 90-day period. The policy also states, wherever possible, its employees and contractors will arrange access during normal working hours at a time convenient for the customer.

Summary of Events

Between 9 November 2020 and 16 December 2021, the resident reported issues with the storage heaters in his property nine times. The landlord has been unable to provide repair notes for one of these reports. Following the resident’s report dated 9 November 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property to investigate the issue. Its repairs log shows that it traced the fault, serviced, and overhauled four storage heaters. It also shows it repaired three of the resident’s storage heaters and identified a new storage heater was required in the living room. On 8 January 2021 and 13 January 2021, the landlord informed the resident the issue around his storage heaters was a problem with the Economy7 supply to his property. The resident was advised he needed to contact his electricity supplier about the issue as there was nothing the landlord could do. Following the advice, the resident raised further problems with the storage heaters to the landlord.
On 30 July 2021, the resident reported his bathroom window was jammed shut. Following this, the landlord arranged an appointment for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 19 August 2021 in the afternoon.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property in the morning. The landlord’s repairs log note that the contractor reported that the window handle was not jammed, but the window lock mechanism needed replacing. Due to the works required, the contractor made a recommendation to replace the entire window as this was more cost effective.
On 10 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint as he was still unable to open his window and wanted an update. The landlord contacted the contractor to identify where the recommendations had been sent to. The landlord logged this as an informal complaint by the resident. During the call, an advisor answered the resident’s queries. The landlord believed the matter had been resolved and the complaint was resolved as an informal complaint. The resident was not provided with a follow up letter after this.
On 24 September 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction that the window had not been fitted and stated he wanted to be compensated.
The resident rang the landlord on 19 October 2021 chasing the repairs to his window. He also emailed the landlord on 25 October 2021 stating even though he had made complaints numerous times, he had not received any feedback.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord chased its contractors who informed it, they were going out that afternoon to measure up for the window. The contractors attended the resident’s property on the same day and measured up for the window.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 2 November 2021 and asked it to provide the resident with a response to his complaint by no later than 16 November 2021. The Ombudsman explained the resident believed the landlord had failed to resolve his heating issue and fix his bathroom window. The Ombudsman also explained the resident had issues around the standard of work by the landlord’s operatives and the fact he had not received a written response after raising his complaint in September 2021. The landlord treated the Ombudsman’s email as the resident’s first notification of complaint.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property regarding the repairs to his window but there was no answer. The contractor tried ringing the resident and left a voicemail.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 22 November 2021. Within the response it apologised for not meeting the resident’s expectations and for any inconvenience caused. It stated it had tried to contact the resident but unfortunately was not successful in doing so. It stated it reviewed the information provided to the Ombudsman around:
1. In respect to the storage heaters, it noted that the resident first reported an issue in November 2020 and following this, the heater in his lounge was replaced. It explained the contractor that had been out to his heaters previously and advised, the problems were not with the heaters themselves, but with the Economy 7 supply to his home, as such he needed to contact the energy supplier about this. It explained there was a surveyor’s appointment on 14 December 2021 to look at the heater that had come away from the wall, and it said any further works would be raised following this visit.
2. In respect of the bathroom windows not opening, it apologised for length of time taken to fix this. It explained delays had been due to supply of materials and availability of scaffolding. It explained it had been out to measure the windows and it would be back in contact to arrange an appointment for the job to be completed.
3. It apologised for the poor experience the customer had with the standard of work in his home. It explained its repairs team leader would contact the resident to speak about it and arrange an inspection of his home with one of its surveyors, who would look at what they could do to put things right.
4. Finally concerning the previous complaint in September, it explained, the concerns raised in September were recorded on its internal systems. During a call on 10 September 2021, an advisor took payment and answered his queries. Because of this, the complaint was completed as an informal complaint. It explained it did not follow up informal complaints with a letter and apologised this was not communicated to the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 November 2021 and informed him the window would be completed by 2 December 2021. The resident confirmed he was happy for the landlord’s contractors to attend. On the same day, the resident confirmed with the landlord he would like his complaint escalated to stage two. He also contacted the Ombudsman explaining the landlord had offered him temporary electric heaters which he did not find reasonable. He stated he was dissatisfied as he had been without heating for two years.
The Landlord provided its stage two response to the resident on 16 December 2021 and stated:
1. Following the resident’s report around his heating in November 2020, it had investigated and informed him the problem was due to the Economy 7 electricity heating supply and not the actual heaters in the property.
2. It had asked him to contact his energy supplier to ask them to attend and fix the fault and it had changed the heater in the living room for a more energy efficient model.
3. Although he reported issues with his storage heaters on several occasions, and it had attended to try and fix the fault, unfortunately the issue of the economy7 meter remained until his energy supplier attended, to change the meter.
4. Its repairs team leader and electrical technical coach had been supporting him with discussions with his energy supplier. There had been five appointments made but no one had attended from his energy supplier so far. The landlord stated it would continue to support him with this.
5. It had fit a new heater in the bedroom of his property and replaced the bathroom window on 3 December 2021. It had also offered him alternative accommodation as part of a managed move, somewhere he stated he would like to move as he had friends and family there, but he stated the apartment did not meet his needs. It is unclear if this move was offered due to the heating issue or a combination of both issues.
6. Its repairs team leader had been working with him to fix the issues and they would continue to be in touch until everything was complete.
7. It understood the frustration caused and apologised for the time it was taking to get the heating working fully and as a gesture of goodwill they cleared the arrears on his rent account.
On the same day, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update and stated the landlord cleared the rent arrears. His heating was still not working. The resident updated that the landlord had installed and wired a new storage heater in the bedroom which was proving expensive to run. He reported smashed glass from the window in the property by the contractor who came to repair his window. The resident said he was not contacting the landlord anymore as nothing was getting done.
After the landlord’s stage two response, the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied and believed there were still outstanding repairs. He raised dissatisfaction about numerous attendances and cancelled appointments in respect to the heating issue, contractors attending in the morning when afternoon appointments were offered, the coldness of the property in winter and the landlord’s staff. He then contacted the Ombudsman again and asked for the investigation to be closed on 21 December 2021, before asking for it to be reopened on 22 February 2022 following a dispute over a managed move with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised with this service an issue around a managed move offered by the landlord. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint around the repairs to the resident’s heating system and window repairs. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. As such the Ombudsman is unable to consider the issues around the managed move offered by the landlord to the resident in this instance. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately, considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure in reaching its decision.
Although it is noted there is a long history of heating difficulties in the resident’s property, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 9 November 2020 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because, residents are expected 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 while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.

The resident had difficulties with his heating and lived with the issue for a long period of time. He explained his difficulties and described the freezing conditions of his property. The Ombudsman recognises this and the level of distress this would have caused to the resident.
Following the resident’s reports of issues with his heating system, the landlord attended to inspect the storage heaters and found the fault was not an issue with which they could deal. It informed the resident of this and explained the resident needed to contact his energy provider to fix the issue as the fault was with the electricity metre as opposed to the storage heaters, and in line with its policy, it was not responsible for this. While the resident clearly disagrees with the landlord and continued to report the issue to it, there is no evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for the issue. The landlord would have been obligated to take further action if the utility supplier had investigated and placed responsibility on it after the resident had contacted them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach to this was reasonable. It demonstrated a customer focused approach by supporting the resident in discussions with the energy supplier.
Following the resident’s reports of issues with his heating system the landlord attended and replaced the older heaters at the property to improve the situation for the resident. It also offered the resident temporary heaters and an offer of an alternative property. While the resident did not believe these solutions were suitable for his needs, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does demonstrate that the landlord considered a range of options to try and resolve the situation given the permanent fix to the issue was outside of its control.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom window.

On separate occasions, the landlord offered the resident afternoon appointments but then proceeded to attend the appointment in the morning. This inconvenienced the resident and on one occasion led to a missed appointment. This also goes against the landlord’s policy as its contractors attended the resident’s property at times which were not convenient for the resident.
In line with its responsibilities under its repairs policy, the landlord took responsibility for fixing the damage to the resident’s window. However, the length of time it took the landlord to complete the required repairs was outside the 28 days for routine repairs and 90 days for planned maintenance works provided within its repairs policy.
The landlord originally attended the repair under the assumption, it was a routine repair, but it then identified the problem with the window was more complicated than initially thought and it became apparent this was a planned repair instead. The landlord looked to obtain quotes from its suppliers and arranged appointments for the works to be completed. It determined a temporary repair could not reasonably take place as it needed to remove the double-glazed unit to access the required part. As such the delays were due to the supply of the required parts and this was outside of the landlord’s control. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, that the landlord acted reasonably and took the necessary steps to rectify the issue which led to the need for more resources than originally anticipated. The need to change the window rather than being able to repair the window handle contributed to the delays faced by the resident.
However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the resident with an update, and explanation of the required works, and managed his expectation around the delays. The failure to do so by the landlord would have added to the frustration and inconvenience faced by the resident. The landlord should also have explained to the resident why a temporary repair was not feasible. Had the landlord explained this to the resident, he might not have had to spend time chasing updates around the repairs. This shows poor communication by the landlord in this instance.
The landlord has acknowledged the delays and apologised to the resident for this in its stage one response. Despite the landlord offering remedies for its failings in its stage two response, these appear to solely refer to the issue around the heating and there appears to be little focus on the window repairs.
Although the apology and acknowledgement of the delay is a positive attempt to set things right by the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not go far enough. Following the landlord’s decision to treat this as a planned repair, the resident was left with a delay to the repair of the window of 47 days, outside the planned works timescales. The landlord failed to progress the repair promptly when it was identified that a replacement window was needed. The landlord’s communication of the delays and progress of the repair was poor and left the resident, distressed, frustrated, and inconvenienced by the lack of progress or updates on the repairs.

Landlord’s complaints handling

The resident stated he made a stage one complaint in September 2021. However, evidence from the landlord’s stage one response, shows it believed the resident raised an informal complaint on 10 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged it dealt with this as an informal complaint as part of the de-escalation process within its policy. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this complaint or how it was de-escalated. It also appears from the landlord’s records; the resident made another complaint on 24 September 2021. The landlord has not made any mention of this complaint in either its stage one or stage two responses. The resident further stated in an email on 25 October 2021 that he made complaints numerous times and had not received any feedback.
Further to this, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at section 4, states it is not appropriate for landlords to have complaint handling stages, outside of their formal complaint’s procedure. This is because, such an approach may cause confusion to residents, which happens to be the case here. The Ombudsman’s complaints handling code states any attempt at such approaches, should be made with the resident’s agreement. It is not evident in this case if the resident agreed to the complaint being dealt with informally under the landlord’s de-escalation process.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint has not been handled correctly by the landlord. This is because it has not provided evidence of how it de-escalated the complaint on 10 September 2021, nor does it appear to have responded to the complaint of 24 September 2021 within specified timescales in its policy. This would have left the resident frustrated and confused at a lack of response from the landlord, it also inconvenienced him as he appears to have chased a responses before it was explained to him, one of his complaints was dealt with informally.
As a result, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there has been service failure by the landlord with its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom window.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The resident reports there had been an ongoing issue with the heating to his home for a prolonged period of time. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s reports and following the investigations, the landlord informed the resident the fault was with the electric meter and supplier, which was outside its control. The landlord has demonstrated that it was customer focused by continuing to support the resident in rectifying the issue.
There were delays to the repair of the bathroom window and while some of these delays were outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord’s poor communication about the delays caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. Although there were issues outside of the landlord’s control and it acknowledged the delay, the level of redress offered was not reflective of the level of inconvenience to the resident as he had to chase updates around the repair.
The landlord failed to provide evidence of how it de-escalated the resident’s complaint. Its lack of clarity left the resident confused as he believed his complaint was outstanding, and it also appears to have failed to provide a response to a second complaint from the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the delays in complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation around the delays to the window repair.
3. Pay the resident £50 in compensation for the complaint handling failure.
4. Review its policy around informal complaints and ensure its complaint handling policy is in line with the Housing ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code , especially around its de-escalation process.
5. Provide the Ombudsman with proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should:
1. Review its staff’s training needs around complaint handling, to include identification of and differentiating between complaints and service requests.
2. Review its staff’s needs around communication training and establishing communication timeframes to keep residents informed of progress of repairs.
3. Contact the resident to gain the latest information around the resident’s heating difficulties and see if it can provide further support.
4. Contact the resident to discuss the issues around the managed move and identify if a resolution can be reached.