LiveWest Homes Limited (202306780)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306780

LiveWest Homes Limited

18 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to the concern regarding the safety of the electrical cabling to the boiler.
This Service also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant whose tenancy started in April 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a 1 storey building. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities on its system for the resident which include that she is a wheelchair-user and is non-verbal.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord carried out a gas service at the resident’s property. No concerns were highlighted during this inspection.
On 10 March 2023 the resident reported a concern regarding discolouration of one of the cables to her boiler. She provided a photo of the cable and said this should be checked by the landlord. She raised other repair issues at this time however as the resident has not brought these issues to the Ombudsman, details have not been included here.
The landlord raised a job on 13 March 2023 for a gas engineer to attend to check the cable. On 20 March 2023 an engineer attended and replaced the cable.
On 20 March 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding the discoloured cable to her boiler which she said had looked burnt or singed. The resident said after reporting this to the landlord, it addressed other repairs she had reported but it did not rectify the discoloured cable. The resident said that a gas engineer however attended that day and replaced the cable to the boiler. She said the engineer:
1. Told her that there could have been a fire (and explosion) at any time due to the failure of landlord to check and replace this cable.
2. Explained that the wire in the cable may have been damaged when installed.
3. Said that while there had been enough connection to complete the circuit, occasionally the wire would have shorted giving the burn mark.
The resident stated that the landlord’s failure to check and replace the cable earlier was “very serious”.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that its customer service team should have dealt with her 10 March 2023 report regarding the discoloured cable as a separate request. It explained that instead, this was sent over to its regional operations manager (ROM) to review indicating this report was not correctly triaged. The landlord said a job was not raised until 3 days later and this was attended on 20 March 2023 where the cable was replaced. It could see an operative attended on 14 March 2023 to address the other repairs raised however, as the boiler cable was not part of this job, they would not have inspected the boiler.
The landlord said it had investigated her concern regarding the cable not being installed correctly and it posing a fire risk. It was satisfied that the chances of this causing a fire would have been minimal. The landlord explained:
1. The boiler was protected by a 3-amp fuse and a residual current device (RCD) at the consumer unit which would prevent a serious incident.
2. The discolouration on the outer jacket appeared to be from where the cables had been pulled tight and the coloured cables inside were not melted.
3. Live cable had not been stripped enough and the wire insulation had been caught on the captive screw which could cause it to heat up.
4. It apologised for its engineer having caused unnecessary worry over this incident and offered the resident £50 in compensation for this.
On 12 April 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She stated that the faulty cable present since she moved in had put her in a life-threatening situation. On 4 and 5 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase its response. The resident said the landlord should take responsibility for the fault in the boiler cable and its potential risks, and apologise to her, and to the engineer whom the landlord tried, unreasonably, to “use as a scapegoat”.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated it was taking her concerns “extremely seriously” and had spoken to 3 electrical supervisors regarding the matter who all stated that the cable was not a fire hazard. The landlord reiterated what it had said in its stage 1 response including that the boiler had protections in place to prevent this leading to an explosion. It apologised that she was caused unnecessary worry regarding the communication from the gas engineer.
The landlord stated that during the recent service of her gas boiler, electrical tests were carried out and each cable passed and was functioning correctly. If the cable was identified as not working then it would have been addressed and replaced, as necessary. Regarding her comments that the gas engineer was not at fault, it was appropriate that the gas engineer shared his findings with her however as a gas engineer, he was not from an electrical background, so it believed his initial feelings may have been an overreaction when understanding the draw on the cable. This was discussed with the engineer’s manager and would be discussed with the engineer separately.
The landlord “sincerely” apologised for the distress and upset caused to the resident. It offered an additional £200 in respect of its delayed complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the concern regarding the safety of the electrical cabling to the boiler

In her formal complaint the resident raised concerns about the discolouration of the cable to her boiler, and the time taken by the landlord to address this issue. The landlord’s electrical safety standard (ESS) states that it will make safe any unsafe appliances as a priority repair within 24 hours. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says it will:
1. Attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Provide appointments for routine repairs within 28 days.
3. Provide appointments for “larger repairs” within 90 days.
The resident first reported that she noticed discolouration of the cable to her boiler on 10 March 2023, when she also provided a photo to the landlord. The landlord forwarded the resident’s communication to its ROM who then consulted with its electrical and mechanical team before raising a job 3 days later, on 13 March 2023. The landlord told the resident at this time that it could not identify the cause of the discolouration to the cable, so it was raising a job to get this checked as a precaution. It then took a further 7 days for a gas engineer to attend the resident’s property to inspect the cable who replaced it during the same visit due to safety concerns.
The timeframe taken by the landlord to attend the resident’s property to check the cable, was inappropriate. The landlord was unable to identify the cause of the discolouration of the cable from the resident’s initial report. This indicates that the landlord was unsure about whether the issue posed a risk to safety or not. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have recorded the resident’s report as an emergency in order that the cable was checked more quickly. This is in accordance with its ESS which says the landlord is committed to ensuring residents are not exposed to any risks that would affect their health and safety.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it had not correctly triaged the resident’s report. It explained that on receiving her report on 10 March 2023, this was passed to its ROM to review rather than a job being raised in the first instance by its customer service team. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging and apologising for not having dealt with her report appropriately. However, the landlord has not explained why it failed to deal with her report as an emergency when it raised the job to inspect the cable on 13 March 2023. This shows it missed a further opportunity to inspect the cable within the emergency timescale of 24 hours to reduce any potential risk to the resident.
In her complaint the resident stated the engineer who replaced the cable told her it had not been installed correctly and due to shorting of the wires, could have caused a fire at any time. She said she believed the landlord had put her in a life-threatening situation. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish the level of risk or potential danger posed by any action or inaction by the landlord. However, we would expect the landlord to show it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns and that it had previously carried out appropriate gas safety and electrical checks during the resident’s tenancy, in accordance with its obligations.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted the engineer to discuss the condition of the cabling found during the visit on 20 March 2023, which the Service has seen a record of. The landlord also sought advice from electrical surveyors from within its mechanical and electrical team regarding the risk posed by the issue. The action taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns was appropriate and shows it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained the outcome of its investigation which was that the risk of a fire from the cable was “minimal”. The landlord gave reasons for this conclusion including that the boiler was protected by a 3-amp fuse and an RCD at the consumer unit which would prevent a serious incident. It also said that the (3 individual) coloured cables inside the outer cable were not melted and the discolouration on the outer jacket appeared to be from where the cables had been pulled tight.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that evidence the landlord collated during its investigation (including photos from the gas engineer) supports the reasons it gave in its complaint responses for the risk being minimal. Nonetheless we acknowledge the landlord’s response indicated that the damage to the cabling may still have posed some risk to health and safety up until the date it was replaced on 20 March 2023, albeit this was minimal. As such this Service recognises that this situation caused significant distress to the resident.
In her complaint the resident said that the engineer told her during the visit on 20 March 2023 that the discolouration to the cable may be caused by an issue during installation of the boiler. Based on the landlord’s records, there is no evidence to suggest this. The landlord’s gas safety records seen by this Service show that annual gas service inspections had been carried at appropriate times and that the boiler had passed the safety checks with no issues highlighted at these times. The first service was carried out on 6 April 2022 and the most recent only 5 weeks prior (on 27 February 2023). In its final response the landlord explained that its engineers carry out electrical testing during the service to a gas boiler and that the cabling passed and was functioning correctly at the latest inspection. This is accepted by the Ombudsman as checks to the electrical wiring connections to a boiler is standard practice during a gas safety check. The electrical installation condition report (EICR) dated 8 April 2022 shows that the electrics had also been checked and passed with no faults identified.
Therefore, the landlord has demonstrated it had completed appropriate gas and electrical safety checks prior to the incident and that no faults with the cabling were highlighted. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information in the gas safety and electrical checks. As such there is no evidence to suggest the landlord knew or ought to have known about the faulty cable prior to the resident’s report.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said while it was appropriate for operatives to share findings of jobs with residents, it appeared the gas engineer’s comments to the resident had caused unnecessary worry over the situation in her case. The landlord apologised if the engineer’s communication made her feel that this was a “very severe near miss incident” but stated it could assure her this was not the case.
This Service acknowledges that the resident was unhappy with its response and in her escalation request said she believed the landlord was trying to blame the engineer for its own failure to identify this risk sooner. As the landlord’s assessment of the safety risk posed by the cable was different to the information the resident received from the gas engineer during the visit, it is understandable that she felt she had received contradictory information. However, in its stage 2 final response the landlord apologised for the miscommunication. It also explained the engineer was not from an electrical background, so his initial feelings may have been an overreaction when understanding the draw on the cable.
Therefore, as the landlord gave a possible reason for the gas engineer’s comments and also confirmed it would be providing further training, to ensure that correct information and clear information was provided to residents, this was reasonable.
In summary, while there was a delay by the landlord in its response to her initial report, it resolved the issue 10 days later by replacing the cable. The landlord appropriately interviewed the gas engineer as well as discussing the safety risk of the cable with its electrical team as part of its investigation into the resident’s concern before reaching its conclusion that the risk to safety was minimal. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord should have identified the fault with the cable prior to the resident’s report as no issues were highlighted during gas safety checks and the ECIR.
As well as assessing any failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman’s also considers if the landlord took any steps to put these right during the complaints process. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged failings while triaging her initial report and in relation to the engineer’s miscommunication. The landlord said it was sincerely sorry for the distress and upset caused and offered the resident a £50 payment for:
1. £25 for failure to triage initial request through repairs.
2. £25 for miscommunication during the repair visit.
The landlord’s offer was reasonable. This is because the offer was consistent with our guidance on remedies where the impact on the resident was minimal or short term.
The landlord also confirmed the error in triaging her report had been discussed with its customer service team and that further training would be provided to ensure that correct information and clear information was provided to residents. This demonstrates that the landlord took action to avoid the same situation reoccurring. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which includes putting things right and learning from outcomes.
Therefore, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint regarding its response to her concerns regarding the safety of the electrical cabling to the boiler.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 11 working days later, on 4 April 2023. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy (at the time of the complaint) which gave a 20-working day timescale.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 4 April 2023. On 13 April 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and told her it would provide a response by 24 April 2023. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 final complaint response until 23 May 2023. This was 32 working days after the resident’s escalation request.
This was inappropriate as it was inconsistent with the landlord’s complaints policy (at the time of the complaint) which gave a 12-working day timescale (5 working days to acknowledge a complaint and a further 7 working days to provide a stage 2 response).
In its stage 2 final response the landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. In the circumstances, this Service is satisfied that the remedy offered by the landlord was proportionate to the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, we consider the redress offered by the landlord put right its failing while handling the resident’s complaint, as such it provided reasonable redress.
At the time of the complaint, the timescales in the landlord’s complaints process were not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). This requires landlords to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. However, as we are satisfied the landlord had since amended the timescales in its policy to comply with our timescales, no related order is included below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the electrical cabling to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the related complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the compensation offered during the complaints process if it has not already done so.