NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202327342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327342

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

10 April 2025

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 handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of issues with his boiler.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the property with his wife since 2006. The property is a 3–bedroom house and the landlord is a housing association.
3. The boiler is in a cupboard in the bedroom and the condensate pipe runs outside. On 15 December 2022 the pipe froze due to cold weather causing the boiler to stop working. The resident telephoned the landlord’s out of hours service at 7.15pm and an engineer attended at 1.25am. The resident had defrosted the pipe himself by that time.
4. On 16 December 2022 the resident made a complaint about the time it took to get through to the out of hours service and the time taken for the engineer to attend. He also asked for the boiler to be moved out of the bedroom and into the utility room. He said his wife has health conditions and it is disruptive when engineers access the boiler in the bedroom for repairs.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It apologised for the delays experienced by the resident on 15 December 2022 and said it had given feedback to the team involved.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2023 as the boiler remained in his bedroom when he had asked for it to be moved. He said the boiler breakdown on 15 December 2022 highlighted the need for it to be moved.
7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 12 October 2023 it said it had liaised with the contractor and was unable to relocate the boiler due to the complexities of moving all the pipework and the costs involved. The landlord said it would install a new boiler which would reduce any need for repairs and contractors would only need to attend once a year for the service. It said it would give advance notice and would move and replace any furniture to gain access to the boiler in the bedroom, to reduce inconvenience to the resident.
8. The resident referred his complaint to us as he maintains he wants the boiler relocated.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the boiler

9. When the resident rang the out of hours service on 15 December 2022 at 7.15pm he says it took over an hour to get his call answered. He said he told the call handler his wife had health issues and was advised the engineer would attend as a priority. At 9.30pm the resident defrosted the condensate pipe himself by climbing a ladder and pouring hot water over it.
10. The resident said he was unable to reach the landlord by phone to cancel the engineer, who attended at 1.25am. The engineer advised he was not informed the job was a priority. It was understandable the resident was frustrated and anxious on a cold night without heating, particularly when his wife suffered from health issues.
11. Following his complaint on 16 December 2022 the landlord called the resident on 23 December 2022. It apologised for the waiting time when the resident used the out of hours service and for the fact it was not passed from the call handler to the engineer that the job was a priority. The landlord’s repairs policy lists priority timescales but does not specify who these apply to. The highest priority is listed as requiring attendance within 2 hours. If the resident fit within this, the actual attendance was 4 hours over the target timeframe and this represents an unfair delay.
12. It was positive that the landlord apologised over the telephone and the resident was happy with its action of feeding back to staff the importance of clear communication and information sharing. This reasonably dealt with the resident’s dissatisfaction about the landlord’s response on 15 December 2022.
13. The boiler breakdown prompted the resident to request that the boiler be moved from the bedroom to the utility room. He said it was intrusive and disruptive when contractors came to fix the boiler as his wife was often in bed. He said there was furniture blocking the boiler cupboard and it was inconvenient to move it when the contractor required access.
14. The landlord visited the resident on 9 February 2023 and informed him the boiler could not be moved due to the cost and extensive work involved. It had enquired with the contractor so this decision was based on relevant information. This was an understandable decision and it was positive the landlord delivered its response in person. It also arranged for the condensate pipe to be altered to stop it freezing in future, which was solution focused.
15. The stock survey showed the boiler was due for renewal in 2024. The landlord offered to bring this forward and give the resident a new boiler, albeit in the same location as the old one. It explained the benefits of a new boiler and said it would reduce the need for repairs. It said it would only need to visit once per year to service it and the contractor would move and replace and furniture to minimise any inconvenience. This was a fair and proportionate proposal from the landlord which showed it had considered the resident’s needs and offered what it was able to.
16. The landlord reasonably addressed the delay experienced by the resident when the boiler broke down. It considered the resident’s request for relocation and made a fair decision while offering the resident a compromise that would give some benefit. As a result, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about issues with the boiler.

The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint

17. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 16 December 2022, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 21 December 2022. The landlord did not issue its written response until 17 May 2023, which was excessively beyond its 10 day target timescale. However it is recognised that the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone in December 2022 and provided the resolution that would be later outlined in the formal response.
18. The delay in the written response therefore did not have a detrimental impact on the resident nor prevent the landlord making redress through an apology. It is for this reason the delay is assessed as service failure rather than maladministration.
19. The stage 1 response did not contain information about the resident’s request for the boiler to be moved. It should have included it as the resident made the request at the same time as making the complaint and it was linked. The landlord had already addressed that request and told the resident in person in February 2023 that it could not move the boiler. While the landlord should have confirmed its position in its written response, the fact it did not do so did not delay or affect that decision or its communication to the resident.
20. The stage 1 response reiterated the landlord’s apology. It confirmed the landlord had spoken to the manager of the out of hours service and requested individual staff members were spoken to about improving the service for residents. This was a positive outcome and proportionate to the nature of the complaint.
21. The landlord received the resident’s escalation request on 28 September 2023. This was prompted by the landlord’s attempts to give the resident a new boiler, as previously offered. The resident did not see the point of having a new boiler fitted in the bedroom as he still wanted it to be moved.
22. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 29 September 2023 and provided its response on 12 October 2023, well within its 20 day target timescale. The landlord confirmed its position, that it could not move the boiler due to the cost and complicated works involved. It said it had thoughtfully considered the request and understood the resident’s concerns. It listed the benefits of a new boiler and gave options to reduce any inconvenience in gaining access for contractor visits. This response was timely, thorough and meaningful.
23. Due to the delay in issuing the stage 1 response there was service failure in how the landlord handled the complaint. It is assessed as being at the lower end of this category according to our remedies guidance. It did not delay matters being resolved and did not cause detriment to the resident, as decisions and resolution had already been delivered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the delay in it issuing the written response, which may have caused disappointment and a lack of confidence in its service.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the boiler.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response.