Bolton at Home Limited (202404403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404403

Bolton at Home Limited

21 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs and maintenance of the boiler at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2012. The property is a 3-bed house. The resident lives at the property with her children and grandchild.
The landlord completed an annual gas safety check on the boiler, situated in a bedroom, at the resident’s property on 29 January 2024. During this visit it also carried out a repair on the boiler.
On 1 February 2024, the resident reported an “uncontainable” water leak from the boiler to the landlord. It attended the same day to stop the water leak and then again, the following day to repair the boiler.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 February 2024. She said she thought the repair completed during the gas safety check had caused the subsequent water leak from the boiler. The resident said the water damage to the carpet meant the bedroom could not be used and the carpet had to be removed.
On 9 February 2024, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said the boiler repair completed during the gas safety check was “not related” to the part that had failed and caused the water leak. The landlord also said that water damage to the resident’s carpet was not noted on either of the repairs visits following the leak.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 23 February 2024. She said that if the landlord had “rechecked” the boiler, during the gas safety check visit, it would have noticed the leak.
On 9 April 2024, the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It reiterated that the boiler part which caused the leak was unconnected to the part that was repaired during the gas safety check. It said to the resident it would not compensate her for the loss of her bedroom carpet.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, she provided evidence of concerns about her boiler in April 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised property repairs that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 April 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance of the boiler at the property

On 29 January 2024, the landlord completed a gas safety check at the resident’s property. It also completed a repair to the boiler during this visit.
The resident raised a repair to the landlord on 1 February 2024 for an “uncontainable” water leak from the boiler. The landlord attended the repair on the same day to contain the leak. It attended again on 2 February 2024 for follow up repairs on the boiler.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. Floor coverings are a resident’s responsibility unless it has been damaged by the landlord.
2. Gas servicing and repairs are the landlord’s responsibility.
3. It will complete the “emergency element” of an emergency repair, such as uncontainable water leaks, within 4 hours.
4. It will attend an urgent repair within 7 calendar days.
The landlord’s repairs policy states its buildings insurance does not cover residents’ belongings. It recommends for a resident to take out their own content’s insurance for accidental or flood damage to their belongings, which includes floor coverings such as carpet.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 February 2024. She said that following the gas safety check visit she had noticed a water leak from the boiler. She said there was a “horrendous smell” from the leak which caused the resident’s daughter and granddaughter to not be able to sleep in their bedroom.
The resident said the water leak had ruined the carpet in the bedroom and as a result she had to remove the carpet. She said the landlord had put her and her family in potential danger due to its “inadequate service”. The resident said she would like the landlord to replace the carpet in the affected bedroom.
On 9 February 2024, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said:
1. During the 2 visits to repair the leak from the boiler no smell or water damage to the carpet had been noted by the landlord.
2. The repair that was carried out on the same day as the gas safety check was not related to the part that failed and subsequently caused the leak.
3. It was unable to conclude that the previous repair had contributed to the leak.
4. The landlord was unable to find any evidence that the service provided to the resident was inadequate or dangerous.
5. It attended the repair within the timescales stated in its repairs policy.
6. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
When the resident raised the water leak repair the landlord attended on both occasions within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was an appropriate of the landlord.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had investigated and had found the repair carried out during the gas safety check was not related to the part that caused the water leak. The landlord’s response demonstrates that it investigated and explained its rationale for why it had concluded the gas service on 29 January 2024 and the reported water leak the next day were unconnected.
In making its decision the landlord relied upon the evidence of its certified contractors. It came to the conclusion that it could not uphold the complaint due to the lack of evidence that showed the landlord’s actions had caused the leak. In the absence of evidence which highlight a failure, and due to the appropriateness of its response to the leak, the landlord’s response at stage 1 was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 23 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She said she disagreed with its response at stage 1. She said if the landlord had rechecked the boiler at the gas safety check appointment the water leak would have been noticed. The resident said she discussed the water and the smell with both operatives who attended her property to repair the boiler following the leak. She also said she had concerns about the risk associated with the water leak.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 9 April 2024. It said:
1. It had interviewed the operatives who attended the resident’s property for the boiler repair. The landlord said they “did not recall” conversations with the resident around the carpet being wet or causing a smell in the room. Due to the “difference in the recollection of the conversations” it could not “comment any further about any damage to the carpet.”
2. The seal that was changed during the gas service on the 29 January 2024 was not related to a water containing part and as such did not contribute to the leak that was reported on 1 February 2024. The landlord clarified the fault that caused the leak was diagnosed in a different part of the boiler to that which was inspected, on ‘the left-hand flow’.
3. All staff who attended the resident’s property were qualified gas engineers, certified under “Gas Safe” and who were able to diagnose faults on boilers.
4. It assured the resident that the leak from her boiler was a water leak, not gas, and therefore it was not dangerous.
The landlord re-clarified the steps it had taken to investigate her complaint and make its decisions. It said it was unable to identify a failure and as such was not liable for the replacement of the resident’s carpet.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord attended the emergency repair raised by the resident, contained the leak and then completed the required repair within its repairs policy timescales. It’s initial actions to put things right for the resident were reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the resident’s complaint, it investigated her concern that the gas safety check was the cause of the subsequent leak. In doing so it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion and evidence of the certified contractors that attended.
The landlord concluded that the work undertaken as part of the gas inspection did not lead to the leak. The landlord stated it would not cover the cost of replacement to the resident’s carpet, as it concluded there was no evidence that it was liable for any damage caused. In the absence of evidence to counter the landlord’s findings this was reasonable. It was also in accordance with its policies for the landlord to signpost the resident to her own insurers to seek re-imbursement for a replacement carpet.
The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately in response to the residents reports of a leak and in its subsequent handling of the substantive issue. This leads to a determination of no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the boiler maintenance and repairs at the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 5 February 2024. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process 4 working days later, on 9 February 2024. This was within the 10 day timeframe to respond as provided by the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 23 February 2024. The landlord responded to the resident around 31 working days later, on 9 April 2024 at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. This was a delay of 16 working days beyond the requirement of its policy to respond at stage 2 within 15 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that if it requires more time to respond, it will communicate this requirement to the resident. However, the landlord did not do this and in its delayed response inappropriately did not acknowledge or apologise for its failing.
In summary, as part of the landlord’s complaint handling it failed to acknowledge a delay at stage 2 and made no subsequent attempt to offer redress for this failing. This leads to a determination of a service failure by the landlord. An order for £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions is made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs and maintenance of the boiler at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to conduct the following actions within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failure detailed in this report.
2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.