Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited (202345934)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345934

Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited

26 June 2024


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 is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. A boiler repair.
    2. Repairs to a patio door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the property concerned has been adapted to meet her physical disabilities.
  2. On 18 September 2023, the resident reported that her patio door was difficult to open and close. The landlord’s contractor attended and found the patio door to be in working order. Separately, the resident notified the landlord on 29 September 2023 that her boiler was firing up, even when not in use, and she was worried this was costing her money.
  3. The resident complained on 6 October 2023 that the landlord failed to keep her updated about the boiler repair. She also complained the repair was overdue. The resident said her time had been wasted waiting for calls and the repair, and her gas bill had increased.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response from mid-October 2023, it apologised that the boiler repair was delayed by 5 days and that she was not initially kept updated. It offered £24 compensation and agreed it would reimburse her for increased energy usage if she provided evidence.
  5. On 27 November 2023, the resident reported she was having difficulty with the patio door again and that there was now a gap at the bottom. Following an inspection in mid-December 2023, a specialist door contractor was assigned, and the resident advised the repair was due to be completed in January 2024. Around the same time, she sent the landlord energy bills to demonstrate proof of increased costs from the problem with her boiler.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 7 December 2023 that there was no evidence of the resident’s gas consumption increasing over the period complained about. It said it would not be providing further compensation and re-offered the £24 for its failure to meet its timescale for the boiler repair.
  7. In late March 2024, the resident made a formal complaint about the time it was taking to repair the door and that a contractor had not attended an appointment on 29 March 2024. She also complained that water had leaked through the gap and had damaged her carpets, and that she had incurred added energy costs to heat and dry the property.
  8. In the landlord’s first response on 3 April 2024, it explained that the delay was due to not knowing the name of the manufacturer of the patio door because they were installed by a local council contractor as part of adaptations to the property. The landlord apologised that its contractors did not turn up to a scheduled appointment. It offered £125 compensation, confirmed the repair would be completed on 12 April 2024, said it would clean the carpets, and agreed to consider reimbursing energy costs if she provided evidence.
  9. Subsequently, the resident complained again on 4 April 2024 about the delay in repairing the patio door and suggested the leak under the door had been ongoing for months. She also said she had been advised by a professional that her carpet and underlay were ruined, and she asked for the landlord to replace them.
  10. The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 24 April 2024 that a further issue with the door had been identified on 12 April 2024, and that it aimed to complete the repairs within 3 weeks. It disagreed that the leak had been longstanding, but offered to pay the resident £1000 to cover the cost of replacing her flooring as a gesture of goodwill, in addition to the compensation originally awarded.
  11. On 30 April 2024, the landlord completed the repairs to the patio door and a post inspection was carried out by a surveyor the following day.
  12. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord offered. She advised it was not proportionate to the costs she incurred, and the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Boiler repair

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs policy it aims to complete urgent repairs, such as partial or total loss of heating between 1 May and 31 October, within 7 days. Otherwise, it looks to complete routine repairs within 28 days. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the resident was without heating or hot water. Rather, the problem she reported on 29 September 2023 was that the boiler was firing up constantly. It is apparent however that the landlord classed the matter as urgent as it aimed to complete the repair by 6 October 2023, within 7 days of the resident reporting the problem.
  2. On 12 October 2023, a contractor from the manufacturer attended and found the problem to be with a control unit. They confirmed the boiler was otherwise in working order. It took the landlord 5 days longer than its expected timescale to complete the repair. In the stage 1 response of 17 October 2023, the landlord said the reason for the delay was because its heating contractors experienced high demand for emergency repairs and there were staff shortages. It also said that the heating contractor then decided to refer the issue to the boiler manufacturer because it was still under warranty. The available records support the reasons the landlord gave for the 5-day delay.
  3. The landlord apologised for not meeting the projected timescale and offered a payment of £24. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation for delays in a repair of £10 for the initial failure, and £2 for every day thereafter. Under this policy an award of compensation for a 5-day delay would be calculated at £18. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s apology and the payment was proportionate to the inconvenience the resident was caused by the delay in the boiler repair.
  4. After reporting the boiler problem, the resident contacted the landlord several times between 4 and 6 October 2023, stating that she had not heard from the heating contractor. The landlord apologised and explained it was due to the need to prioritise emergency cases because of staff absences. It was appropriate for it to take accountability for not keeping the resident updated early on. It also said it would be more proactive in monitoring jobs that were with one of its contractors. The landlord’s apology and learning were appropriate remedies for the inconvenience caused, according to its complaints policy, for the brief period she was not kept updated.
  5. The resident claimed on 8 October 2023, in a follow-up to her initial complaint, that her gas bill had more than doubled. She subsequently advised that her radiators were on full without her meaning them to be. In the stage 1 response, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for increased costs and asked her to provide copies of bills covering 29 September 2023 to 12 October 2023, and those from the previous year for comparison.
  6. In the stage 2 response of 7 December 2023, the landlord compared the resident’s gas usage from 2022 with her estimated usage over the period that her boiler repair was outstanding. The landlord recognised that the 2023 bill she provided was an estimate, so it also compared the difference between her meter readings from before and after the events complained about. Based on the calculations the landlord concluded there was no evidence that her usage had increased.
  7. The resident advised this Service that the landlord’s approach was incorrect because it based its decision on her usage rather than the increase in her bills. However, the landlord’s approach in comparing the resident’s usage, rather than the costs, is a reasonable way to determine if a fault with the boiler was using more energy. The price of energy fluctuates, therefore, an increase in bills is not an indication that someone has consumed more energy.
  8. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of her boiler repair initially and took longer than it said it would to complete the work. However, the landlord recognised this and apologised, offered compensation, and demonstrated that it had taken on board learning from the situation. These were effective and fair ways to resolve the complaint under the landlord’s policies and according to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Patio door

  1. Initially when the resident reported a problem with her patio door on 18 September 2023, it was because she had difficulty opening and closing them. Records show that the landlord responded promptly as contractors attended on 29 September 2023, well within the landlord’s 28-day timescale for routine repairs. The resident then reported that there was a gap at the bottom of the door on 27 November 2023, as well as a recurrence of the original issue. Consequently, the landlord’s contractors adjusted the doors on 11 December 2023 and reported them to be in working order. A surveyor attended on 18 December 2023 and raised an instruction for a specialist door contractor to repair the gap in January 2024. The date on which the specialist contractor attended is unclear from the available evidence, but records indicate it did go ahead and they identified a need to obtain a part for the door.
  2. The resident complained on 21 March 2024 about the time it was taking to repair the patio door. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 3 April 2024, it said the reason for the delay was because of difficulties in confirming the door manufacturer from the company that installed it. The landlord advised that this was not known to it because the door was part of adaptation works undertaken by the local council. The records also show that the landlord was working with its specialist contractor and the local council to find the necessary information to progress the works. It also kept the resident updated and was transparent about the reason for the delay. While it is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the time it was taking, the evidence shows the landlord was taking reasonable steps to obtain the information it needed.
  3. On 28 March 2024 the resident reported that water had leaked under the gap in the doors and had potentially damaged her flooring. She also said that she likely would incur additional costs from heating and drying the property. Accordingly, the landlord advised the resident a contractor would attend to install dehumidifiers the following day, but this did not happen until 30 March 2024. The landlord explained that this was due to increased demand caused by emergencies. Even so, the landlord took accountability for its contractor not attending by apologising and offered £25 compensation, which was proportionate to the 1-day delay and inconvenience caused. Additionally, it offered to clean the resident’s carpets when the repairs to her door were completed. This was a reasonable offer because the landlord is not required to clean carpets, as these are the responsibility of the tenant and may be covered under contents insurance.
  4. At stage 1, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in the repair to the door. This is the maximum payment that the landlord will pay under its compensation policy for a delay in a repair. It also offered a further £50 for the inconvenience to the resident and agreed to consider if the resident had incurred additional energy costs if she provided bills. The amounts the landlord offered were in-line with its compensation policy for delayed repairs and where there has been a degree of impact on a resident. In addition to the compensation, it advised the resident that its contractor had obtained the necessary part and was due to fit it on 12 April 2024. The remedies the landlord offered in its first response were reasonable to put things right.
  5. In the resident’s reply to the stage 1 response on 4 April 2024, she complained again about the time it was taking. In the stage 2 on 24 April 2024, the landlord said the specialist contractor and surveyors attended on 12 April 2024, and that they found the patio door had not been fitted correctly. It said it was pursuing the matter with the contractors who installed the door and it aimed to complete all works within 3 weeks. The patio door repair was completed on 30 April 2024 and a post inspection was carried out by the landlord’s surveyor on 1 May 2024. However, the resident reported a problem with the door not locking on 1 May 2024, which the landlord advised was resolved within 24 hours. It took the landlord around 4 months longer than it originally intended to repair the resident’s door. This though was due to the fact the landlord had originally classed the repair as routine when it required the involvement of specialists. In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not meet its original timescale.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to cover the cost of replacing her flooring because she said a carpet fitter advised her that it was damaged beyond repair. The landlord agreed to pay £1000 towards replacing the flooring, but it said that this was as a gesture of goodwill because usually this would be something a resident would claim through their content’s insurance. Indeed, the landlord’s compensation policy does state that it will signpost residents to claim under their home insurance in cases where personal items have been damaged by an unknown repair issue, as was the case here. According to the compensation policy, the landlord may make goodwill gestures in instances that it has caused a resident “stress, upset or inconvenience”. It was appropriate for the landlord to revise its original compensation offer because of the further delays, and its offer to pay for the resident’s carpet was a fair remedy for this individual case.
  7. As well as paying compensation and a goodwill payment, the landlord said it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint. It said it would ensure post inspections would be carried out to ensure the quality of works, particularly where completed by a third party. These improvements are a positive step in addressing the underlying cause of the problem that occurred with the resident’s door.
  8. The repair of the resident’s door took longer than the landlord anticipated it to, and this led to false expectations and disappointment. The landlord has however acknowledged this, apologised to the resident, provided explanations and compensation, and carried out repairs. These remedies were in-line with The Code and were appropriate to put things right in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about:
    1. A boiler repair.
    2. Repairs to patio doors.