Clarion Housing Association Limited (202230348)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230348

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 May 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs at the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed house.

Policies and procedures

3. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the heating and hot water installations in the property. The agreement specifies that residents must provide access to the property for the landlord to carry out repairs.
4. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that emergency repairs (those which present an immediate danger or risk to the resident or others) should be attended and made safe within 24 hours.
5. The landlord’s compensation policy says that when there is a loss of hot water due to an outstanding repair, it will pay £5 compensation per day once 7 days have passed since resident’s first report. The same rate applies for a loss of heating if temporary heating has been provided. If temporary heating has not been provided at the initial appointment, compensation runs from the date of the initial report. The policy also says the landlord will pay residents £15 per missed appointment if it gives less than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation.
6. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy as a result of a cyber-attack. Under that policy, the landlord was required to issue a stage 1 response within 20 working days, and a stage 2 response within 40 working days of an escalation request.

Summary of events

7. The resident reported a total loss of heating and hot water to the landlord on 22 November 2022. The landlord’s engineer attended the following day. The engineer’s notes say that a new pump was needed, which they ordered.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 November 2022 for an update. It told her that it had ordered parts for the boiler, which were due to arrive the following day, and that the earliest appointment was 29 November 2022. The landlord booked the repair for that date. The engineer did not attend, and the resident contacted the landlord for updates. It offered her temporary heaters, which its notes say she declined as they would not resolve the lack of hot water.
9. The landlord then booked an appointment for 1 December 2022. The landlord’s repair logs indicate that an appointment did not go ahead due to a lack of access. This is disputed by the resident, who contacted the landlord on that day to report that no operative had turned up for the appointment. The landlord then booked an appointment for 5 December 2022, which its engineers did not attend.
10. On 6 December 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she had been without heating or hot water for 15 days.
11. On 7 December 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord told her it was awaiting parts. The resident disputed this. She said the contractors had told her the parts had arrived on 28 November 2022. She said the engineers had taken no action, and kept cancelling her appointments.
12. The landlord’s engineer attended and repaired the boiler on 9 December 2022. The boiler then stopped working again on 15 December 2022. 
13. The landlord’s engineer attended on 15 December 2022. The landlord’s repair logs said the pump needed to be moved, and parts were needed. The resident contacted the landlord the following day. She said multiple parts had been changed but the boiler was not working, and that nobody had contacted her to arrange a further appointment. She disputed that the engineer needed to wait for parts, and said the parts were readily available. The landlord told its contractor to look into the matter, and indicated that the issue needed to be resolved urgently.
14. The resident chased again on 19 December 2022, and then made a further complaint on 20 December 2022. She said she was still without heating and hot water, there had been multiple cancelled appointments or engineers who could not fix the issues, and there were delays on parts that were readily available.
15. The landlord carried out the boiler repair on 21 December 2022.
16. On 28 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said there had been delays in the works due to a contractor falling ill after collecting the parts, and that the engineers had to reorder the parts as a result. It apologised for the delay and offered £210 compensation (£100 for distress and inconvenience, and £110 for 22 days without hot water).
17. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said she disputed the landlord’s version of events, and the compensation offered was insufficient. She said she wanted the landlord to offer further compensation and to reimburse her for earnings she lost while waiting for contractors. On 16 January 2023, she added that she believed the repair would have been carried out within 1 day had the landlord sent a capable engineer, and that she felt ignored. She chased a response on 30 January 2023. On 10 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it was reviewing the compensation offer and her email of 16 January 2023.
18. On 16 February 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It offered a further £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for delays in its complaint handling. The resident remained dissatisfied, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

19. The resident told the Ombudsman that delays in repairs had a major impact on her physical and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs

20. The landlord has accepted that there were unreasonable delays in carrying out the repair, and offered compensation to the resident. The resident does not believe that the compensation offered is sufficient. She said she was left without heating or hot water during a sub-zero cold spell, and wants to be compensated for lost earnings when staying home for engineer appointments.
21. The role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations when handling the repairs. Where the landlord has offered compensation, the Ombudsman will determine whether the compensation offered appropriately reflects the likely level of distress or inconvenience caused by its failings, and whether the compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s published remedies guidance.
22. At stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord apologised for the delay in the repairs. It also offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused, and £110 compensation for the loss of hot water. The compensation for loss of hot water was calculated at £5 per day after 7 days of the report, for a total of 22 days. At stage 2, it offered a further £250 for distress and inconvenience, and £50 for delays in its complaint response.
23. The landlord was required, under its repairs and maintenance policy, to attempt to repair the boiler within 24 hours. Its initial attendance was within 24 hours. However, it did not repair the boiler until 21 December 2022, which was 29 days later. The offer of compensation for loss of hot water was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, it was required under the policy to offer a payment for the loss of heating as well as loss of hot water, rather than simply a loss of hot water.
24. While the landlord offered temporary heaters, it did not do so at the first appointment. As such, the compensation for loss of heating would be £5 per day from the date of the report, totalling £145 for a 29 day period. As it did not offer this payment, its compensation offer for loss of amenity was not in line with its compensation policy.
25. The landlord also offered £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. As set out above, the landlord was required to repair the boiler within 24 hours, but did not carry out a lasting repair for 29 days. This is clearly an unreasonable length of time, and it has recognised there were failings and tried to put things right.
26. When determining whether a compensation offer is sufficient, the Ombudsman considers how much of the delay was caused by failings on the landlord’s part, and how much was unavoidable. It would be neither fair nor reasonable, for example, to order a landlord to pay compensation for delays in parts being available, as that would be outside of the landlord’s control.
27. It is apparent from the information provided that the entirety of the delay was not caused by the landlord. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s belief that the repair could have been carried out within 24 hours had a different engineer been sent to investigate. However, a landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its contractors, unless there is some evidence to the contrary available at the time. It therefore acted reasonably when accepting the original contractor’s opinion that a new pump was required. The Ombudsman also notes that, although there was an unreasonable delay in offering temporary heaters, the landlord did offer those heaters after 7 days to mitigate the effect of the loss of heating on the resident until the repair could go ahead.
28. However, some delays were caused by the landlord and its engineers. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the engineers failed to attend appointments, and that the resident had to repeatedly chase updates. It is apparent from the information provided that the landlord chased the repair with its contractors, and stressed the urgency of carrying out the repair. However, its records also show that its contractors ignored instructions to contact the resident, and the landlord was reacting to repeated contact from the resident rather than proactively monitoring an emergency repair. It also failed to investigate when the resident disputed the engineers’ update that the parts for the repair had not yet arrived. Having to chase up an emergency repair for almost a month would inevitably lead to distress and inconvenience, and it is apparent from the information provided that the resident had to do so repeatedly.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation between £250 and £500 to be offered in instances where there has been a considerable failure with no permanent impact on the resident. The offer of £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance. As the sum offered is in addition to the compensation for loss of amenity, the Ombudsman considers the compensation offered for distress and inconvenience to be an appropriate offer in this case. 
30. The Ombudsman notes that the resident believes the landlord should offer £600 compensation for lost earnings as she had to stay home to provide access to contractors. She said this included waiting for contractors who never attended, as well as those who did not carry out an effective repair.
31. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to reimburse a resident for their time off work or loss of wages while repairs are carried out. This is because while such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. The landlord’s compensation policy also makes it clear that it would not offer compensation for appointments where its engineer attends but is unable to complete a repair.
32. However, under the landlord’s compensation policy, it is required to offer a payment of £15 for an appointment which is either missed or cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice. This is payable for each missed appointment, unless the resident did not provide access for the repair, or the missed appointment was outside of the landlord’s control (for example, where poor weather conditions prevent a roof repair). It is common ground that some appointments were missed. However, it is unclear from the information provided how many appointments were missed with less than 24 hours’ notice, and there is a dispute as to whether or not there were issues with access on at least 1 occasion.
33. The Ombudsman cannot determine, based on the evidence provided, whether or not the landlord is required to pay compensation for all of the missed or cancelled appointments. However, the information provided indicates that at least some compensation for missed appointments may be due under the landlord’s policy. As such, the landlord must review the information it holds regarding missed appointments. It must then write to the resident to set out a reasonable offer of further compensation for missed appointments in line with its compensation policy, together with an explanation of its calculation. For the avoidance of doubt, if the resident is dissatisfied with that offer or the explanation for it, that would be a new complaint which would need to complete the landlord’s complaints process before the Ombudsman could consider it, rather than a continuation of this complaint. 
34. Overall, while the landlord has accepted that there were unreasonable delays in carrying out the repair and took steps to put things right, its compensation offer was not consistent with its compensation policy. This was because it did not offer any compensation for loss of heating or consider compensation for missed appointments in accordance with its policy. As such, the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair amounts to maladministration.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £605 compensation for its poor handling of boiler repairs. This is inclusive of the compensation offered as part of the complaints process (but excludes the £50 offered for complaint handling), and is broken down as follows:
       1. £350 for distress and inconvenience.
       2. £255 for loss of amenity for heating and hot water.
    2. Write to the resident with a further offer of compensation for missed appointments, in line with its compensation policy. The landlord must include the following in its letter:
       1. The date of each missed or cancelled appointment.
       2. Whether or not compensation is being offered for each of the appointments.
       3. If it does not believe the £15 compensation is due under its policy for any missed or cancelled appointment, what its reasons are.
37. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescale set out above.