Bolton at Home Limited (202313535)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313535

Bolton at Home Limited

20 December 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 response to the resident’s reports that her kitchen extractor was not working effectively.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. She occupies a 3-bedroom, semi-detached property. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she has reported to it that she suffers from fibromyalgia.
3. On 15 December 2022 the landlord’s contractor removed the resident’s extractor which was located above her cooker. It fitted a new one 1.5 metres away from the cooker on the wall. The resident reported that it had broken on 2 occasions in January 2023, and on each occasion the landlord’s operatives attended to fix it. On 23 March 2023 she reported that the fan was not strong enough and its contractor attended to ‘check and change’ the settings.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 April 2023 that the fan was useless. She said the contractor had queried why it had positioned this over the sink rather than the cooker. She said he was unable to make the fan more powerful as the ‘code’ on it was locked. The resident said her kitchen was full of condensation which was causing her smoke alarms to go off.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 1 June 2023. It explained that it had removed the old fan on health and safety grounds as it should not have been above a gas cooker. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and offered compensation of £100.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2023. She noted that, although the landlord had explained why it could not position the fan over the cooker, the fact remained that it was not working effectively. She felt the fan must be faulty given the number of repairs it had needed.
7. The landlord provided its final response on 5 July 2023. It noted that it had attended the previous day and the fan was in working order. It reiterated that it had not positioned the fan above the cooker on health and safety grounds and because there was wiring in the walls, and an air vent, which made it impractical. It said that she could formally request permission to install a cooker hood herself.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and considered the issues with her fan unresolved.

Assessment and findings

9. Under Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the premises in good repair, including installations. The landlord acknowledges this responsibility in its repairs policy. While it does not explicitly state that it is responsible for the installation and maintenance of fans, it has a duty under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to ensure adequate ventilation in its properties to prevent condensation, mould and dampness.
10. The landlord accepted that it was responsible for installing/maintaining the resident’s fan and attended to fix it following her reports that it was not working. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines timescales for completing repairs according to their priority. It must respond to ‘responsive repairs’, defined as straight-forward, non-urgent repairs within 21 calendar days. Given the repairs did not pose a significant risk to the resident it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with them under this category.
11. The resident first reported that her fan had broken on 3 January 2023 and the landlord attended on 16 January 2023. It responded within 14 calendar days which was reasonable and in line with its policy. According to the operative’s notes, it changed the fuse spur and completed the repair.
12. The resident reported that the fan had stopped working again on 24 January 2023 and the landlord attended the following day. Its operative noted that the cover was not on correctly and fixed this. Again, the landlord acted promptly upon the resident’s report and resolved the issue.
13. On 23 March 2023 the resident reported that the fan was not working effectively. The landlord’s contractor attended on 11 April 2023 to ‘check and change’ the settings. The instruction manual for the fan suggests it can be programmed to ensure sufficient extraction based on its location. This was therefore an appropriate step and the contractor attended within a reasonable timeframe.
14. In her complaint the resident reported that the contractor was unable to change the settings to make the extractor more powerful as the code had been ‘blocked’. The instruction manual notes that a passcode is required to change the settings. The job notes make no reference to this, nor comment on the functionality of the fan, or the setting it was programmed to. They do not say whether the contractor took any action during this visit or intended any follow-on work. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the fan was operating at optimal performance at this time.
15. The resident also complained that it had moved the fan which she felt impacted its effectiveness. She noted that the contractor who had attended in April 2023 had questioned why it had relocated the fan. In its response the landlord explained that this was for health and safety reasons. It elaborated on this further in its final response. Overall, the landlord provided an appropriate explanation of why it moved the fan. It also provided advice to the resident about how she could request permission to install a cooker hood, which was fair and reasonable.
16. Regardless, the landlord was responsible for ensuring the fan was operating sufficiently. Given the resident’s complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow-up with the contractor to establish whether the fan settings were correct. There was a delay in it doing so, and the landlord’s internal correspondence shows it was not clear who was responsible for progressing this. It was not until 31 May 2023, 42 days later, that the landlord asked the contractor to re-attend to check the humidity sensitivity and boost settings, as per the manufacturer’s instructions.
17. The contractor attended on 2 June 2023 and reported that the fan was working as required but said the resident was barely using it. The contractor provided no evidence of the checks it had made and the setting the fan was on, but the landlord had given clear instruction about the settings it should check and it was reasonable for it to rely on its conclusions.
18. Despite this, the resident explained in her escalation request that she did not consider the fan to be operating sufficiently. In response the landlord arranged for an inspection which took place on 29 June 2023. This was 23 days following the resident’s report, which was slightly outside of its timescale for responding. This is not considered a significant delay. The stage 2 response suggests that the landlord’s inspector attended a further follow-up appointment on 4 July 2023.
19. The landlord’s building inspector confirmed that the fan was working on normal and boost speeds and had been installed according to the electrical instructions. They also noted that because the fan was too close to the front wall this could impact its effectiveness. A senior member of the team questioned the inspector about this and they explained that air was being pulled from the hallway into the kitchen and suggested the issues could be resolved by the resident closing the kitchen door and turning the fan on when cooking. The condensation was also triggering the smoke alarm in the hall. They also referenced that it could arrange an ‘airtec survey’.
20. There is no evidence this survey took place, but it is not clear that it was necessary based on the inspector’s overall finding that the fan was operating effectively and shutting the door could improve ventilation.
21. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the fan upon this basis. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident remained dissatisfied with the fan. It is not for this Service to establish whether the fan was performing adequately but rather to assess the actions taken by the landlord in line with the resident’s reports. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident was inconvenienced by having to report faults with the fan on several occasions. However, overall, the landlord took reasonable steps by repairing and inspecting the extractor.
22. There were some delays in it attending to the resident’s concerns. It should also have communicated to the resident in its final response (or otherwise) that closing the kitchen door would increase the effectiveness of the fan and improve ventilation. However, on balance the Ombudsman considers these issues to be shortcomings rather than failures and has made a finding of no maladministration.
23. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to engage with the resident and consider whether an airtec survey would be useful, should her concerns about poor ventilation persist.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her kitchen extractor was not working effectively.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

25. The landlord should engage the resident to explore whether she has ongoing concerns about the fan’s effectiveness. It should consider whether an ‘airtec’ survey would be useful to further explore whether there is adequate ventilation in the property.