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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202224519)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224519

Wandle Housing Association Limited

28 February 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 about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of a heating and hot water repair.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord by mutual exchange. The property is a 2 bedroom street property. Within the household there are children under 10 who are disabled and adults with physical and neurodiverse conditions. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household, although it has been made aware of them in correspondence.
  2. The landlord’s complaint timescales in its complaint policy are 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints and this aligns with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The Code also states that: complaints should be acknowledged on receipt within 5 working days, landlords should address all points raised in the complaint at stage 1, on escalation the landlord should set out its understanding of the complaint and outcome sought and if unclear it should seek clarification, and the full complaint definition should be agreed with the resident.
  3. As per the repair policy, the landlord is responsible for heating and hot water repairs and making an area good following a repair in preparation for the resident’s decoration. The resident is responsible for internal decoration and their own possessions. Emergency works, such as total loss of heating and hot water in winter, are to be addressed within 24 hours. Urgent works are categorised as such by the landlord’s discretion and include as an example loss of heating and hot water, these should be addressed within 7 days. Appointed works are addressed within 21 days from April 2022 and major works are addressed within 90 days. The landlord will communicate where there are complex jobs to ensure that resident expectations are managed and they understand timeframes. The landlord will arrange mutually convenient appointments except for emergency repairs.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 October 2022 the resident woke in the night to a loud noise and felt unsafe due to hot water coming from the taps. She contacted the out of hours repair team which offered to attend within 2 hours, but she said she would call back in the morning due to the time.
  2. The landlord visited the property the next day and noted that the hot water was feeding into the cold tap and the toilet cistern, and there was no heating. It raised a request for the heating engineer to attend, and they attended on 17 October 2022 and recorded that the heater and hot water were left working.
  3. The resident raised the repair again on 19 and 20 October 2022 and the landlord recorded that there was again no heating or hot water. The following day the landlord noted that a valve was required and it left the resident a voicemail message about booking this in. On 24 October 2022 it sent the resident a text message stating that the appointment had been rebooked for 26 October 2022.
  4. That appointment went ahead, the valve was replaced and it was noted to be left in working order. However, the same day there was an error reported and the operative was asked to reattend. The new valve had caused a problem to a different part of the system, the pump, which the engineer found had burnt out and needed to be replaced. On 27 October 2022 there was a record of a defective boiler, and work raised regarding the pump as early as possible.
  5. On around that date the resident called the landlord and said she could not keep taking time off work due to multiple appointments so asked for all the work to be completed in one visit when all the parts were available. The landlord offered temporary heaters, but the resident was not able to be at home to take delivery due to work.
  6. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 28 October 2022, detailing the events from 15 to 19 October 2022 and stating that a contractor had been dismissive, rude and obnoxious and she had asked him to leave. She said her heating had been £15/day due to the faulty immersion and after turning it off on 17 October 2022 the cost had reduced to £2/day. She therefore asked for the immersion to be removed. The resident felt the landlord had handled things inefficiently and it had been hugely inconvenient for her as a vulnerable tenant with young children in the property.
  7. On 31 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor told the resident that its engineer could not make an appointment to repair a leak coming from the heating tank through the hallway ceiling, so this was rebooked for 1 November 2022. However the resident was unable to attend on that date and she was therefore asked to rebook. The repair records state that the cylinder was broken and this needed to be replaced.
  8. The resident telephoned the landlord on 8 November 2022 to chase an update on the required parts and, in response, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint. It noted that the resident had been without heating or hot water since 19 October 2022 and parts were still needed to restore this. The repair records state that, on 14 November 2022, the necessary parts were fitted.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 November 2022, it acknowledged the resident’s report that, since the immersion had been turned off, her energy costs had reduced. It explained the purpose of the immersion as a back-up hot water source to the boiler, and that it did not need to be switched on at all times. As a result, it would not accept liability for it being left on. It noted that the contractor had been unable to fix the underlying problem with the immersion heater so it asked the resident to book for an engineer to attend.
  10. The landlord apologised for the contractor’s conduct and said they had been spoken to and any necessary actions would be taken in line with its internal procedures. It sincerely apologised for the service the resident had received and said it took her concerns seriously.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 December 2022, when she highlighted delays and errors in the landlord’s complaint response. She stated that she had been without heating and hot water for 4 weeks from 19 October 2022, she had continually had to chase the repairs and be available for multiple appointments, the landlord and contractor were not communicating about the repair, and the repair had taken longer than the landlord’s published timescales. She also explained that her ceiling had been leaking for 2 weeks and there had been difficulties arranging appointments for an engineer to attend.
  12. The resident went on to say that there was no immersion in the property, but a system boiler connected to a water tank which was leaking and caused damage to the ceiling. She said this was the only source of hot water, contrary to the landlord’s comments. She reiterated that there were vulnerable people in the property, disabled children under 10 and adults with physical and neurodiverse conditions. As a resolution to her complaint, she requested:
    1. £250 under the right to repair scheme as the landlord did not carry out the contracted repair within the required time.
    2. £350 for loss of earnings and missed appointments and inconvenience caused, plus reimbursement for high energy costs related to having a faulty water tank for a prolonged period.
    3. £10 plus £20 per day under the right to repair scheme at the maximum of £50.
    4. Repairs to the damaged ceiling.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 January 2023, when it detailed its efforts to complete the necessary repairs from 26 October to 14 November 2022. It then reiterated its explanation about the use of the immersion heater. It apologised and offered compensation which it calculated as £5/day without heating and hot water for 6 days between 8 and 14 November 2022, and its policy allowed it to make payments of £60.

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident reported further issues with the heating and hot water in February, March, June and July 2023. The landlord’s handling of these specific incidents is not assessed in this report as they have not yet been considered through the landlord’s complaints process, so the landlord may consider addressing this as a new complaint if the resident so wishes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water repairs

  1. The landlord is responsible for heating and hot water repairs and should carry out emergency works within 24 hours, urgent works within 7 days, and appointed works within 21 days, as per its repair policy. The repair obligations have not been disputed.
  2. The evidence shows that when the resident first reported the issue the landlord offered to attend within its policy timescale of 24 hours. Following an initial fix of the repair that had been reported, the resident raised further reports on 19 and 20 October 2022. On 21 October 2022 the landlord established that a valve was required. This was ultimately fitted on 26 October 2022, within the policy timescale of 7 days for urgent works. The landlord attended again the same day following another report, and identified that there was a problem with the pump. It agreed to group appointments together after that as per the resident’s request.
  3. Thereafter, there was a missed appointment on 31 October 2022. The record states that the operative told the resident that this “could be carried over till morning” but the resident has said that she was waiting until late that day for the replacement. However, on the same date there was a record stating that the appointment was rebooked for 1 November 2022 and confirmed with the resident. On 1 November 2022 the record stated that the resident had to go to work and would call back to rebook. The resident next chased the landlord on 8 November 2022 and at this point the landlord resumed its repair services and completed the work on 14 November 2022.
  4. It is evident that the heating and hot water repair was creating a significant inconvenience to the resident and her family. The landlord took reasonable steps initially, as per the assessment of its repair operatives, to resolve issues as they became apparent, within the policy timescale of 24 hours for emergency work such as no heating or hot water and 7 days for urgent work such as problems with the heating and hot water.
  5. The landlord took steps in line with its repair policy to “make safe” the issue, such as by offering temporary heating, while the works were in progress and it was waiting for parts. However, it is apparent that the patch fixes were not entirely successful so the resident, and the vulnerable members of her household, were left without proper and permanent heating and hot water during the winter period, from late October to 14 November 2022. 
  6. There has been limited evidence that the landlord took into account the resident’s reports about her household’s vulnerabilities. There were vulnerable residents who were disproportionately affected by the continued reported issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider these, and to consider the impact of the intermittent breakdowns and patch repairs on them. It would have then been appropriate for the landlord to test the system with guidance from its heating experts, once it became aware of the repeated breakdowns and the resident’s circumstances, following the repairs it initially carried out.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £60 for a 6 day delay which it considered had occurred from 8 to 14 November 2022. Although the consideration of financial redress was appropriate and resolution focused, this offer was not proportionate to the cumulative detriment experienced by the resident and her family. This particularly takes into account the repeated reports of faulty systems, the inconvenience caused by multiple repairs appointments, and the length of time the issues remained ongoing.  As a result, this Service finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord and orders an uplifted award of compensation based on the Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her complaint on 28 October 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 November 2022, 3 weeks later, exceeding the policy timescale of 10 working days. The landlord failed to log the complaint within 5 working days as per the Code, and the resident had to chase the response when she called on 8 November 2022 which is not appropriate.
  2. The resident then escalated her complaint on 1 December 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 January 2023. This was a duration of 5 weeks which exceeded the policy timescale of 20 working days. Therefore the landlord did not comply with the timescales under the Code and its response was unreasonable.
  3. There were further failings in the complaint handling as the landlord did not engage in the entirety of the resident’s complaint when it escalated at stage 2. As per the Code, on escalation the landlord should set out its understanding of the complaint and outcome sought and if unclear it should seek clarification, and the full complaint definition should be agreed with the resident. The landlord failed to do this.
  4. The landlord’s focus at stage 2 remained on the original complaint points about staff conduct and the cost and replacement query of the immersion heater. In fact, the resident had since expressed her views about the heating and hot water element, specifically about the water tank, which the landlord missed the opportunity to respond to.
  5. It remains unclear if the resident is aware of what kind of heating and hot water system serves the property. The landlord has said it is a boiler with an immersion heater as a secondary source which does not have to be kept on, while the resident states that there is no immersion heater. The repair records state that the immersion heater had been left on, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify this so that the resident can make an informed choice about using the immersion heater which the landlord has said is in operation. An order has been made in respect of this point, to clarify the heating as it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do so in the complaint response.
  6. The resident also asked about damage to the ceiling for 2 weeks. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this concern or provided the resident with a response to her request for it to repair the ceiling, which would have been reasonable to do.
  7. Overall there has been maladministration in the complaint handling. This is because the landlord failed to respond within an appropriate timescale and it also did not respond in full to the complaint issues which were raised. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s report about the heating and hot water.
    2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out a series of individual repairs each time the resident reported concerns about the heating and hot water and when it identified these. The landlord took steps under its policy to arrange mutually convenient appointments and offered make safe measures such as temporary heating. However, the landlord failed to take into account the reports of vulnerable occupants and the impact of intermittent repairs on them, nor did it effectively communicate about the repair categories or clarify confusion over the heating and hot water system, which would have been reasonable to do.
  2. The landlord failed to address the entirety of the resident’s complaint and it also failed to respond within its policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £410 compensation, inclusive of the amount already offered, comprised of: 
      1. £150 distress and inconvenience for the repair to the heating and hot water
      2. £200 for the time and trouble for the complaint handling
      3. £60 it previously offered, if this has not been paid already.
    2. Clarify with the resident the heating system which is in place in the property.
    3. Discuss the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities with the resident and update its records accordingly.