Anchor Hanover Group (202229303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229303

Anchor Hanover Group

22 December 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.

Background

2. The resident is elderly and an assured tenant of a flat in a low-rise building. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The boiler broke down on 10 November 2022, resulting in a loss of heating and hot water. It was repaired on 11 November 2022. The boiler broke down again on 18 November 2022 causing another loss of heating and hot water again.
4. Because of the resident’s lack of heating and hot water, the landlord raised an emergency repair with its contractor to repair the boiler within 24 hours.
5. The resident was informed that the contractor would attend on 18, 19 and 20 November 2022. However, the contractor failed to attend the property on each occasion. The boiler was repaired on 21 November 2022, and the heating and hot water were restored.
6. On 5 December 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint as summarised below:
   1. The boiler was installed on 12 September 2007 and was over 15 years old.
   2. The contractor failed to attend the property on multiple occasions despite promising to do so. The contractor did not respond to the resident’s emergency repair request within 24 hours.
   3. The resident was only provided updates on the emergency repair after he chased the landlord and contractor. The contractor informed the resident that he might have to wait until Monday before the repair was resolved because the emergency was reported on a Friday.
   4. The resident and his wife suffered distress as they are elderly and particularly vulnerable to the cold.
   5. The resident had to use his own electric heaters, whilst the central heating did not work but was unable to heat the entire flat.
   6. The resident requested that the landlord establish a contingency plan to ensure that emergency repairs are always addressed within the target timescale.
7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 December 2022, in which the complaint was upheld. The summary of the stage 1 response is as follows:
   1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerability due to his age and apologised for failing to deliver its emergency repair service within the target timescale.
   2. It explained that its response to the emergency repair was late for the following reasons:
      1. Its contractor had stretched resources and was struggling to meet the demand.
      2. All heating contractors were under pressure during winter.
   3. It had put a contingency plan in place to cover the work and uses other contractors in some cases.
   4. It would be implementing new contracts in 2023 to improve the repair service being delivered.
   5. It offered the resident £21 in compensation for the duration of time the resident was without heating and hot water.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the request on 17 January 2023 and requested further information from the resident, which was provided on 23 January 2023.
9. The landlord provided its final response on 2 February 2023 and upheld the complaint. Its response can be summarised as follows:
   1. The landlord correctly identified the resident’s complaint and the solutions he wanted.
   2. The landlord recognised that the resident had lost heating and hot water and raised an emergency repair. The landlord also acknowledged that the contractor should have responded within 24 hours.
   3. It stated that using a different contractor was hard because the current contractor required 24 hours to respond to an emergency repair before it can be said that they have failed to respond. The current contractor had faced challenges with their workforce.
   4. It would implement new contracts which should result in significant improvements in the repair service being delivered.
   5. Its compensation for loss of heating and hot water was £7 for each period of 24 hours. Its compensation scheme covered the resident’s situation as he was without heating and hot water for longer than 24 hours.
   6. Its customer relations team accepted that there may have been some miscommunication in their response to the resident’s original complaint.
   7. It confirmed its offer to the resident of £21 in compensation for the length of time he was without heating and hot water.
10. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 February 2023 as he was dissatisfied with the stage 2 outcome. The resident explained that:
    1. He offered to hire somebody himself to repair the boiler if the landlord agreed to reimburse him and the landlord refused.
    2. He is dissatisfied with the stage 2 outcome as a contingency plan had not been established.

Assessment and findings

11. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
12. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The level of compensation offered following the landlord’s failure to attend an emergency repair.

13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord admitted that it did not provide its emergency service within the 24-hour target timescale.
14. The landlord was responsible for ensuring that the emergency repair was responded to within 24 hours. The landlord should have also kept the resident informed about the progress of the emergency repair.
15. If the landlord became aware that the emergency repair would not be responded to within 24 hours, it should have discussed the next steps with the resident. This could have included instructing a different contractor to respond to the emergency repair or allowing the resident to hire a contractor to respond to the emergency repair at the landlord’s expense.
16. The landlord did not provide any evidence to show that it took action to ensure that the emergency repair was responded to as quickly as possible.
17. The resident had to contact the landlord and contractor multiple times for updates on the emergency repair. The resident was also informed on several occasions that the contractor would attend, but this did not happen. This indicates that the landlord did not provide the emergency service as promised in its policy.
18. According to the compensation for loss of heating and hot water – resident help sheet, compensation payments made are designed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to a resident and help with additional expenses incurred. However, it may not cover the entire additional cost.
19. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has awarded compensation to the resident in line with its policy for loss of heating and hot water.
20. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says that when we find a failure which adversely affected the resident, compensation between £100 to £600 is appropriate. The compensation offered – taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities were not appropriate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an emergency repair contingency plan, to ensure that emergency repairs are always attended.

21. The resident’s original complaint requested the landlord to establish a contingency plan to ensure that emergency repairs are always addressed within the target timescale.
22. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it had put a contingency plan in place to cover the work and used other contractors in some cases. However, it did not provide any details about its contingency plan, whether it had been used, or why it did not use a different contractor in this case.
23. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it is not easy to use a different contractor because it must allow the current contractor 24 hours before it can declare that an emergency repair has not been addressed. This statement contradicts the landlord’s stage 1 response, which implies that the landlord does not use different contractors even when an emergency repair has not been addressed within 24 hours.
24. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did inform the resident that it will be awarding new contracts which will see significant improvements in the emergency service being delivered going forward. However, this did not directly respond to the resident’s request for a contingency plan to be put in place. The landlord’s response to this request was confusing because the information contained within the stage 1 and stage 2 responses was conflicting.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

25. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint and escalation request within its target timescale. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within its target timescale; however, its stage 1 response was issued 1 working day late.
26. The complaint summary within the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement letter was inaccurate. This caused stress to the resident as he believed that the landlord would not investigate the problem which he raised. The acknowledgement letter was not corrected and reissued to the resident.
27. The Ombudsman is satisfied that landlord’s complaint summary accurately represented the residents complaint. This shows that the error it made in its stage 1 acknowledgement letter was rectified within its stage 1 response.
28. The resident also informed the Ombudsman that he was not happy that the landlord issued an unsigned stage 2 response on which was not on the landlord’s headed stationary.
29. This Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord issued an unsigned stage 2 response that was not on headed paper. This could cause the resident to doubt the legitimacy of its stage 2 response.
30. Collectively, this shows a failure in quality standards. However, it does not add up to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord corrected the error it made in its stage 1 acknowledgement letter and acknowledged its stage 2 response dated 2 February 2023 as its official final response.
31. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a minor failure by the landlord in the quality of its correspondence sent to the resident. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged these failings and took action to correct the complaint definition that was considered within the complaint process.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must, no later than 31 January 2024:
    1. pay the resident £200 in compensation for its failure to deliver the emergency repair service to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly into the resident’s bank account and not offset against any rent arrears, if any.
    2. provide evidence to this Service of the compensation which has been paid.
    3. inspect the boiler to see if it needs to be replaced due to its age and recent repair history.
    4. write to the resident and set out what contingencies the landlord has put in place under the new contracts where emergency repairs are not completed within the relevant timescales.

Recommendations

34. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord implement quality control measures to ensure a consistent quality of correspondence. This will avoid any misunderstanding relating to the legitimacy of the landlord’s correspondence.