Trident Housing Association Limited (202232115)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232115

Trident Housing Association Limited

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report of a faulty boiler.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in December 1996.

Landlord obligations

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in ‘good repair’ all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and space heating. This largely mirrored its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The landlord’s repairs policy states a total loss of heating or hot water supply in the winter months is categorised as an emergency repair. It would attend within 24 hours to make safe the repairs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 6 December 2022 the resident’s boiler stopped working due to a fault. She reported the issue to the landlord’s out of hours repairs service on 7 December 2022. It explained its repairs team were informed and would plan next steps with the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team later that morning. She stated:
1. It had not received notice of her previous report to the out of hours line. It would however send an engineer to attend that day.
2. Later that afternoon she chased the landlord for confirmation of the engineer’s attendance before its switchboard closed for the day. The landlord explained it did not have enough engineers to attend and would visit on 8 December 2022.
On 8 December 2022:
1. The landlord’s engineer attended and identified a valve was stuck. He switched a switch connected to the 3-port valve and the boiler functioned again.
2. The resident states she raised concerns the valve may become stuck again and believed a replacement would be suitable. The engineer did not consider a replacement was required and marked the repair as complete.
3. Around 7pm the boiler failed. The resident reported the fault to the landlord’s out of hours repairs team. It explained no engineers were available to attend. This was due to its engineers only working in the resident’s location on Tuesday and Thursday. A further repair job was raised for an engineer to attend and repair the resident’s boiler for 13 December 2022.
4. The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair and asked for it to provide a permanent solution.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Within its letter, it explained its complaint procedure and what to expect if the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. Within its explanation, it stated the stage 2 investigation would be completed by a senior manager and the staff member who dealt with the original complaint.
On 13 December 2022 an engineer attended the resident’s property and replaced the 3-port valve.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response:
1. It apologised for the level of service it provided.
2. It upheld the complaint.
3. It confirmed with the resident during a telephone call on 16 January 2023, her boiler was fully repaired and in working order. It therefore closed the complaint.
On 25 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 January 2023.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response:
1. It regretted the resident raised her issues through its complaints process. However, it upheld the complaint.
2. It acknowledged the resident was left without heating for 3 days and she and her husband were left cold during the winter period.
3. Its policy was for a 24-hour repair however, that did not mean it would be on the same date. It took learning and would ensure its customer team did not misinform residents in future about a same day repair.
4. It apologised for the level of service it provided and acknowledged its initial stage 1 response was not satisfactory. It offered £60 as a goodwill gesture.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord provided a letter further to its stage 2 response. It confirmed it would reimburse additional costs the resident said she incurred, if she could provide evidence in support.

Events after the complaint

On 12 April 2023 the resident reported her boiler stopped working again. The landlord responded and ordered a replacement of the boiler system to resolve the issue permanently. It was installed on 28 April 2023.
On 2 April 2024 the landlord confirmed since this complaint:
1. Its out of hours team and customer service team have new line managers who monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) for repairs being logged on the system and responded to in line with the policy and procedure.
2. The out of hours team categorise an issue and raise the job directly on the system.
3. It introduced a residents portal for increased transparency to its residents so they can view and monitor repairs raised for their property.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

Reports of a faulty boiler

On 7 December 2021 the resident reported a fault with the boiler. She was advised an engineer would attend on the same date. However, she was later informed it was arranged for 8 December 2021 due to the availability of engineers in her area. While the landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident was unreasonable and it took learning from the incident, it was unfair the resident was not advised of a specific timeframe to expect the engineer to attend. The resident stated she waited at home for the duration of the day, therefore giving a timeframe of within 24 hours does not assist the resident or manage her expectations. The lack of communication was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident and she was unable to plan around the engineer’s attendance. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and was evidence of a service failure.
This Service recognises the resident raised concern that the boiler part required replacement on 8 December 2022. While the events which followed did confirm it was appropriate for the landlord to replace the part, in the first instance it was reasonable for its engineer to attempt a repair to resolve the matter before considering a full replacement. The landlord did recognise that following further reports of a fault, that it needed to order replacement parts on 12 December 2022. This was reasonable and evidence of a good repairs service.
While the landlord ordered a replacement part following the resident’s report of a fault on 9 December 2022, there is no evidence of any communication with the resident of its next steps or the expected repair timeframe until 12 December 2022 when it replaced the faulty part. The resident was therefore left without a working boiler for 3 days, which caused her distress and inconvenience. There is also no evidence the landlord considered what alternative or temporary measures it could implement to minimise the distress to the resident such as providing temporary heaters. This was unreasonable and was evidence the landlord failed to communicate effectively or be proactive to minimise the distress caused to the resident, especially when she reported she was cold. This was evidence of a service failure.
This Service notes that since the complaint process was completed, the resident did not report a further fault for several months. After this, the landlord ordered a full replacement of the boiler to avoid future faults.
Overall, this Service recognises the landlord acknowledged its service failures in its communication with the resident and made an offer of £60 for its service failure. However, the landlord failed to recognise the need to offer a temporary solution to the resident whilst she was without heating for several days. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs to a faulty boiler.
The offer of compensation made by the landlord was in line with its compensation policy. However, the impact caused to the resident was more significant than its offer of compensation represented as it was during the winter months. A further award of compensation has been ordered.

The associated complaint

On 12 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Within its acknowledgement letter, it explained its complaint procedure and what to expect if the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. It stated the stage 2 investigation would be completed by a senior manager and the staff member who investigated the original complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person which considered the complaint at stage 1. While this Service has not received enough information to understand whether the resident’s stage 2 complaint involved the original stage 1 investigator, the landlord is reminded that its procedure in place is unreasonable and not in keeping with the Code. This is evidence of a policy service failure.
On 8 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 17 January 2023. This was a delay of approximately 5 weeks. While this Service appreciates it was the Christmas period, the landlord was required to provide its response by 22 December 2022. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy or the Code timescales of 20 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about delays to provide its stage 1 response or sought to agree an extension with her. This was unreasonable and left the resident in the complaint handling process without managing her expectations about when she should expect a resolution of her complaint. This caused her distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to a faulty boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not consider temporary measures for the resident to keep warm while her boiler was awaiting repair, failed to offer temporary heating and she was left cold for 3 days. Its communication was also unreasonable and failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response to the resident until after approximately 5 weeks.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If the landlord has not already done so, pay the resident £60 which it offered in its stage 2 response on 17 February 2022.
3. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £140 comprising of:
  1. £40 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the repairs.
  2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs.
  3. £50 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
1. The landlord should provide compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so by way of its revised complaints policy, the landlord should ensure stage 1 complaints investigators are not involved in the stage 2 investigation.