Central Bedfordshire Council (202318358)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318358

Central Bedfordshire Council

25 February 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 landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints about:
1. His heating and hot water.
2. Work to the boiler and a gas leak.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord’s records show that he has a physical impairment. He also said that the household was vulnerable due to having lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The resident had 2 complaints with the landlord between March 2023 and November 2023. It sent its final responses on 29 June 2023 and 24 November 2023.

Complaint 1

In his complaint communication from March 2023 onwards, the resident said:
1. He had issues with the heating and hot water in the property from October 2022. The hot taps “spurted”, and the radiators did not heat up properly. The landlord’s contractors visited at least 10 times but had not fixed the problem. He did not feel they had investigated his concerns properly and “fobbed him off.” He was unhappy that contractors did not let him know when they would visit.
2. He initially wanted the landlord to replace the boiler. It did on 28 April 2023. He then had ongoing problems with the new boiler, heating, hot water, and thermostat. A contractor visited but did not do anything. They said the landlord would not install bigger pipes, and the thermostat needed an electrician.
3. He wanted the landlord to replace the radiators. He also asked for compensation for inconvenience caused by needing to stay in for multiple appointments and time he spent contacting it and the contractors. He added that he was helping his partner through a loss at the time.
4. On 28 May 2023, someone put a safety warning notice through his door. They also turned the gas supply off due to reports of a leak. He asked why no one accessed the property or contacted him. He called its emergency line and explained he had no hot water or heating and was vulnerable. They did not help. He was unhappy that it did not complete repairs despite his further reports of issues with the hot water and heating.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
1. Said its contractors visited on 6 occasions between 1 January 2023 and 31 March 2023. These were for a heating issue, and a radiator in the bedroom. There might have been more visits than it listed. But it noted that the resident could not remember the dates of other visits.
2. Said its contractors should have let him know about visits and apologised. Its contractors did not keep him informed of what they would do to resolve the heating and hot water issues. It reminded them to let residents know when they are visiting.
3. Said his concern about the cost of multiple visits was understandable. It paid a fixed amount to its contractors for each property. It hoped this reassured him.
4. Discussed why it would not pay compensation during a visit on 16 June 2023. There were 2 no access visits in January and March 2023. As it attended all scheduled visits, and there were no missed appointments, it would not pay compensation.
5. Acknowledged there were multiple appointments, but said these were to resolve the separate identified issues. It would discuss his point about the inconvenience of multiple appointments with its contractors.
6. Said that the National Gas Emergency Service capped the gas because of a gas leak. He was not in, so they could not turn the gas back on for him. As this was over a bank holiday, it visited on the next day (30 May 2023) to restore the gas supply. This was in line with its procedures.
7. Said it had visited and agreed that the cause of the hot water issue was the bath mixer tap. It agreed to replace this on 30 June 2023. It acknowledged his concern that a contractor attended and did not resolve this before its own visit. It said it would investigate further if changing the tap did not work.
8. Found it had tried to do the right thing. It partially upheld the complaint due to its communication not being to the required standard.

Complaint 2

The resident raised further dissatisfaction with the landlord from 1 July 2023. In summary:
1. On 30 June 2023, the National Gas Emergency Service said they needed to cap the gas supply due to reports of a gas leak. This was the same issue contractors did not fix when reinstating the supply.
2. He had no gas supply over the weekend and its out of hours team could not do anything. He asked for a meeting with the contractors for reassurance that it would not happen again. He also asked that it paid compensation.
3. He added that the thermostat was still not working properly. He still had issues with the bath taps which were not changed on 30 June 2023.
4. Following a joint visit on 27 July 2023, operatives identified work to:
  1. Change the gas pipework that ran through the communal hallway as it did not meet relevant regulations.
  2. Replace the thermostat as it was not working correctly and was not set to the right temperature.
  3. Replace the faulty bath mixer tap which was the cause of the water temperature issues.
5. On 9 August 2023, the resident said he was unhappy that an appointment was changed to 11 August 2023, and no one told him. Contractors completed work on 11 August 2023.
6. He was unhappy with the length of time taken to respond to the complaint, and that he did not receive an apology letter from the contractors. He asked why he needed to chase the complaint, and whether the engineer was told that they did not complete the repair the first time. He maintained that he wanted compensation.
In response to his concerns, the landlord upheld the complaint:
1. It said the engineer who reconnected the gas supply on 30 May 2023 found no leak at the time but put the resident at risk. After the second incident, it found a leak in the pipework next to a fire door on 6 July 2023.
2. It asked the contractors to quality check the work completed by the operative. It added that the contractors had provided an apology letter.
3. Its contractors spoke to the engineer about the repair and took action. Its contract had ended, and it had employed a new contractor which it hoped would improve the service. It would honour a £50 compensation offered to him by the former contractor.
4. It understood why the situation may have been distressing due to the gas leak being unresolved. It also said there were 2 missed appointments and recognised the significant inconvenience and distress caused throughout the repairs.
5. It took too long to respond to the complaint and apologised that there were repeated time extensions. It said the manager assigned to investigate the complaint was away in July 2023. It should have acted promptly to reassign the complaint at the time.
6. It offered a total of £620 compensation for:
  1. distress and inconvenience;
  2. time taken off work;
  3. 2 missed appointments;
  4. its poor handling of the complaint;
  5. the £50 offer made by its former contractor.
The resident referred his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the length of time the landlord took to resolve the problems and respond to him. He wanted it to pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concern about the contractors and the quality of their apology. The contractors acted for the landlord. We look at a landlord’s actions. We cannot order the contractors to take specific action. The investigation will consider the landlord’s response and whether this was reasonable.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the gas installations, room heating and water heating.
The landlord’s repairs handbook shows its timescales for completing repairs. It would complete, or make safe, emergency repairs within 24 hours. It would address urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it had a 2 stage complaints process at the time of the resident’s complaint. At stage 1, it aimed to respond within 10 working days, or 20 working days for detailed and/or lengthy complaints. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. It would keep the resident informed of any need to extend the timescales.

Heating and hot water

We have found failings in the landlord’s handling of this complaint as set out below.
In its complaint responses, the landlord recognised that its communication was not to the required standard. Its contractors did not provide a timescale for when they would repair the problems and did not let him know about visits. It said his point about inconvenience caused by appointments was valid. But that each appointment was to address a separate issue. It did not pay compensation as there were no missed appointments.
The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns about its contractors. We understand that operatives visited without an appointment on 31 March 2023. They also left a card to say they had visited on 3 April 2023. It acted reasonably by apologising to the resident and taking steps to remind its contractors of their responsibilities.
The landlord should keep accurate and easily accessible records of communication and repairs. This is to provide an audit trail of what happened. This should include records of work completed by external contractors. Its repair records show that the resident raised 3 repairs for the hot taps in the bathroom and kitchen in June and July 2022. We have not seen further evidence of reports within the landlord’s own records. It needed to ask its contractors to provide records of their visits as part of its investigation. This shows it was not fully aware of the issues the resident reported, or the steps taken.
The contractors provided dates of visits from January 2023 and said the repairs were to fit a part to a radiator, vent the radiators, and re-pressurise the system. The records do not say what problems the resident reported. They also did not account for the time from October 2022, when he said he began to report faults, or show how often he needed to call them.
The landlord acknowledged that there may have been more visits than it documented. The lack of evidence meant that it did not fully address the resident’s concerns within its responses. This includes the length of time the matter was ongoing and his concerns about the number of times he needed to contact its contractors. This was a failing.
The landlord said that the appointments were to address separate identified issues. Due to the lack of records, it is unclear how it found that its contractors had successfully diagnosed the low heating and water temperatures or raised the “appropriate jobs”.
It can take more than one attempt to resolve heating and hot water issues as it can be difficult to identify the cause of a problem at the outset. In some cases, a landlord might need to try different repairs before the matter is resolved. Operatives believed they had resolved the issues on 3 occasions between January and March 2023. However, there was a delay in providing a lasting resolution to the resident, who continued to report problems well beyond this.
We do not usually expect a landlord to compensate residents for needing to stay in to allow access for appointments. Allowing access to the property (with reasonable notice) is a requirement of the tenancy agreement. We would expect a landlord to consider whether the number of appointments needed to identify and complete repairs was excessive or whether these caused unnecessary inconvenience.
The landlord admitted that the resident’s point about the inconvenience of multiple visits was valid. It recognised that the engineer, who attended before its own visit in June 2023, did not provide a solution for the bath taps. But it failed to recognise the inconvenience this may have caused. It instead said it would investigate further if replacing the taps did not work.
The landlord did not fully consider the resident’s concern that he had been reporting the same issues which it had not fixed. It should have recognised the length of time taken to provide a lasting resolution. It also had the opportunity to recognise the impact of the intermittent heating and hot water issues during the winter months. And, that the situation may have been more inconvenient given the household vulnerabilities.
In its response, the landlord acted reasonably by addressing the resident’s further concern about the gas supply. The National Gas company capped the gas, which was why it did not try to contact him to gain access. It visited on the next working day after the bank holiday weekend, which was within a reasonable timeframe. In its responses, it should have explained why its emergency repair service was unable to reinstate the gas over the bank holiday, given that emergency repairs would include total loss of gas supply.

Summary

We have found there was service failure by the landlord for this aspect of the complaint. Due to the lack of available records, it did not demonstrate that it fully considered the resident’s complaint. It did not consider the inconvenience of the intermittent water and heating issues over the winter months. It had not adequately diagnosed the issues to provide a lasting resolution at the time of its responses. We have made orders below for it to put matters right.

Work to the boiler and a gas leak

The resident’s second complaint was that the contractors did not fix a gas leak when reinstating his gas supply on 30 May 2023. This meant that the National Gas Service capped the supply again for the same reasons on 30 June 2023. He continued to have problems with the thermostat and bath taps. He also had no gas supply between 30 June 2023 and 6 July 2023.
Where a landlord admits to failings, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has made a suitable offer of redress to the resident for its handling of this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord acted fairly by recognising that the reported gas leaks in May and June 2023 were the same. This was because the contractor did not find or repair any leaks on 30 May 2023. It recognised that this, alongside the repairs, caused distress and significant inconvenience. It acted reasonably by arranging a joint visit between it, its contractors, and the resident at his request. It noted that there was a delay in arranging this until 27 June 2023.
It did not dispute that there were failings by its contractors and confirmed that the contractors had also provided an apology letter and offered £50. It showed it had learnt from the complaint and considered how it would prevent similar failings in the future. It was no longer using the contracted company and had employed a new contractor. It acted fairly by agreeing to pay the £50 its contractors offered.
It is evident that the situation was likely to be distressing for the resident. It is unclear whether the gas leak was ongoing over June 2023 and there were also delays in correcting his heating and hot water issues. We note that he said that the thermostat and hot water taps were not working on 9 July 2023 following a previous visit where they did not need to be replaced. It repaired these on 11 August 2023. While this may not have had a large impact in the summer months, he still experienced issues with the hot water supply during this period and had no gas supply between 30 June 2023 and 6 July 2023.
Our Remedies guidance (available on our website) states that compensation figures over £600 are reasonable in cases where there has been maladministration which had a significant impact, including an emotional impact on a resident. The landlord’s total offer of £620 compensation is in line with this range. Overall, this is considered proportionate given the effect of its failings on the resident, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord was not obliged to pay compensation towards a resident needing to stay in to allow access for repairs as this is a requirement in line with the tenancy agreement. It acted fairly by considering the resident’s concern that his flatmate needed to miss work for 4 days to allow repairs in its overall offer of compensation. This goes some way to demonstrate that it had considered the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord also acted reasonably by identifying failures in its complaint handling. It responded to the complaint on 29 September 2023. This was 64 working days later and outside its 10-working day policy timescale at stage 1. It failed to escalate the complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its response on 2 October 2023. It then did not provide a stage 2 complaint response until 24 November 2023. This was 39 working days after the email setting out his dissatisfaction, and outside of its 20-working day policy timescale at stage 2.
It acted fairly by acknowledging that the time it took to respond to the complaint was unacceptable and that there were repeated extensions. It also acted reasonably by explaining that the delay was due to staff absence, and that it should have reassigned the complaint Its overall offer of £100 compensation toward its handling of the complaint was proportionate in the circumstances.
We note that the landlord’s compensation offer said it was made in “full and final settlement” of the complaint. We recommend that the landlord removes this wording from its complaint responses. This wording is likely to cause confusion as a resident can bring their complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation even if they have accepted the landlord’s offer.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact of its failures on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about his heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint about work to the boiler and a gas leak, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

We order the landlord to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the identified failings within 4 weeks of this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the initial complaint about heating and hot water.
The landlord should provide evidence showing compliance within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident £620 as previously offered if it has not already done so. This is because we made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this.
2. Removes reference to compensation offers being “in full and final settlement” of a complaint from its complaint responses.
3. Considers whether it now has suitable systems and measures in place for recording repairs assigned to external contractors.
4. Considers completing a self assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), if it has not already done so.
It should confirm if it will act in line with these recommendations within 4 weeks.