Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Croydon (202321534)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321534

London Borough of Croydon

27 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Boiler repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. During the complaint, she told the landlord she had a premature baby living with her.
  2. The landlord employs a gas contractor to carry out boiler repairs. It changed contractor from 1 August 2024. For ease of reference we refer to the contractor who was employed up to 1 August 2024 as “contractor A” in this report and the contractor employed after that date as “contractor B”.
  3. Contractor A attended to a boiler repair on 7 April 2023. It was unable to complete the repair because it needed to order parts. It returned on 17 April 2023. During that appointment it damaged the valve of the boiler. It needed to order another part, so it could not complete the repair at the time of the visit. It delivered 2 temporary heaters to the resident on 18 April 2023.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 26 April 2023 because she was unhappy with the delay in repairing her boiler. She also said contractor A had not provided sufficient temporary heaters.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 November 2023. It apologised for the disruption to her hot water and heating. It acknowledged it had not updated her during the repairs and did not provide her enough temporary heating. It awarded her £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience for the poor communication and the delays she experienced. It also awarded her £25 for poor complaint handling. It said all repairs had since been completed. It did not pay the resident that compensation.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation the landlord awarded. She wanted to know how it had calculated that amount. She escalated her complaint on 20 November 2023. She also said it had not resolved the issues with her boiler.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024. It apologised that its stage 1 response was not accurate because the boiler repairs were not completed in August 2023. It accepted that contractor A had delivered poor service. It said it had changed gas contractor, and contractor B had partially repaired her boiler. It was due to complete the repair on 9 February 2023. It increased its compensation award to a total of £350. Made up of £150 for the repeated service failures to scheduled boiler repairs and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by having to chase up the repair. Contractor B repaired the boiler on 9 February 2024.
  8. The resident contacted this Service in February 2024. She did not feel the amount of compensation the landlord awarded reflected the severity of the issue. She wanted it to increase its offer of compensation. She was also unhappy with how the landlord handled her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Boiler repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend urgent repairs within 24 hours. It should make the repair safe during that visit though it may need a later visit to complete the repair fully. If it cannot repair a boiler in the first visit its contractor should leave residents with temporary heaters. It says its contractors will:
    1. Keep appointments they have made or tell residents if they are unable to attend.
    2. Tell residents about delays in carrying our repairs and keep them updated if they cannot complete a repair in the first visit.
    3. Make sure essential services are connected at the end of the day and when a repair is completed.
  2. The landlord does not have a compensation policy. It says it assesses each complaint on a case-by-case basis to allow it to consider the circumstances of the individual matter at hand. Its repairs policy provides provision for compensation for a total loss of heating and hot water. If the loss extends 5 consecutive days after the fault is reported residents can claim compensation from its gas contractor at a rate of £6 a day until the fault is fixed. It does not pay compensation for the first 5 days.
  3. After the first 2 appointments in April 2023 contractor A marked the boiler as not operational. It should have left temporary heaters after the first visit on 7 April 2023 as the resident was experiencing a total loss of heating and hot water. It was not appropriate that it took 11 days to provide the resident with 2 temporary heaters.
  4. In the evidence provided to this Service it is not recorded that the landlord or its contractor were aware of the premature baby in the household at the time the temporary heaters were provided. It was standard for contractor A to only provide 2 heaters. After further contact from the resident’s children where they explained about the premature baby, contractor A delivered an additional electric heater on 26 April 2023. That action was appropriate given the resident’s family had requested a further heater.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 26 April 2023. She was unhappy contractor A had broken the boiler and with the length it was taking to repair. She also said the 2 heaters it originally provided were insufficient. She did not think the landlord or contractor A had considered the premature baby in her household or the size of the property. She was disappointed with the lack of communication with both the landlord and contractor A.
  6. Between 27 April and 16 June 2023 contractor A attended 7 times to repair the ongoing boiler issues. After the 27 April 2023 repair the resident reported the heating would not turn off. It returned on 30 April 2023. After both appointments it recorded it left the system partially operational. It reported a follow up visit was needed but the resident had heating and hot water. It made 5 subsequent visits to attempt to resolve overheating issues with the resident repeatedly reporting excessive hot water. The resident was frustrated at the amount of times contractor A had visited without resolving the issues. She asked the landlord to arrange for a senior engineer to inspect the boiler. The landlord agreed to ask contractor A to do that. While that was appropriate, it should have investigated why the issue had required repeated visits. Had it done so it could have acted sooner to prompt its contractor to send a senior engineer.
  7. In between that period contractor A missed an appointment on 31 May 2023. In not telling the resident about that missed appointment it did not follow the landlord’s repairs policy. It told the landlord it would pay the resident £20. It asked for her bank details but there is no evidence the landlord provided them. While it was reasonable it did not share her bank details without her permission it should have communicated that offer to her to give her the opportunity to accept it. Internal e-mails from that period also show that the landlord calculated the resident was entitled to £90 under its repairs policy for a full loss of heating and hot water between 7 and 27 April 2023. There is no evidence it directed contractor A to make that payment to the resident. Those failings meant that the resident missed out on £110 in compensation from contractor A that she was entitled to receive.
  8. Contractor A’s Lead Engineer attended on 19 June 2023. He reported that he had completed several checks without being able to identify what was causing the water to run too hot. He fitted a new programmer to see if that rectified the issue. The resident reported it had not worked so the Lead Engineer attended again on 6 July 2023. He told her he thought he had identified the issue but needed to order a new part. She contacted the landlord on 11 July 2023 to chase up the repair. She said she felt that contractor A had not believed her until its Lead Engineer was involved. The resident stopped chasing up the boiler repairs after that e-mail. She told this Service she has no record contractor A returned after June 2023. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it returned. It is not appropriate that the landlord was unaware of whether contractor A had completed the outstanding repairs. It should have chased up the repair after the resident contacted it but there is no evidence it did that. It did not show it had effectively monitored the repairs.
  9. The resident next reported issues with her boiler on 14 November 2023. She said she had no hot water and it was making loud noises. Contractor B attended the next day, topped up the pressure and reported it had left the boiler operational. As it was likely contractor B was unaware of the previous issues the resident had experienced with her boiler that action was appropriate. However, the landlord should have been aware of the ongoing issues with the boiler and considered whether it needed further investigation.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 November 2023 it apologised for delays in repairing the resident’s boiler and for the disruption to heating and hot water. It accepted it had provided insufficient temporary heating. It awarded her £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and poor communication. It did not explain whether that amount included or replaced the £20 offered by contractor A or the £90 she was entitled to receive under its repairs policy. It told her that the repairs were completed on 3 August 2023. That was not correct, it had completed an outstanding issue with a smoke alarm on that date. There was no evidence contractor A had repaired the boiler. The amount it awarded at stage 1 falls within the lower part of the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance. Given the amount of appointments that were required and that it had no evidence contractor A had returned to complete the repair that amount was not appropriate.
  11. The resident reported that the boiler was making banging noises on 20 November 2023. She said had had disrupted her sleep and the boiler was leaking. She had no heating or hot water. Contractor B attended the next day and identified low system pressure. It repressurised the boiler and bled the radiators. It reported it had left the boiler operational. The action the landlord took was reasonable, the boiler was working when it left her home. However, it missed an opportunity to identify the past issues with the boiler.
  12. As part of her stage 2 complaint the resident told the landlord she was unhappy that it had not resolved the issues with her boiler. She thought there was clearly a leak because the pressure needed to be topped up frequently. She asked it to increase its offer of compensation.
  13. Contractor B attended to another urgent repair on 19 January 2024. It identified it needed another appointment to complete the repairs. As part of its stage 2 investigation the landlord asked contractor B to prioritise the resident so that it could resolve the issue as part of its stage 2 response. Contractor B attended on 31 January 2024. During that appointment it identified it needed to order further parts to complete the repair. It was appropriate the landlord tried to ensure the substantive issue of the resident’s complaint was resolved as part of its complaint response.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024. It said contractor A had led it to believe it had fully repaired the boiler before its contract ended. It apologised that did not turn out to be the case. It told her that following its intervention contractor B had completed some repairs. It assured her it would return with the new parts to finish the repair on 9 February 2024. It was appropriate that it increased its compensation award to £350. It also showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously when it instructed contractor B to prioritise her repairs.
  15. When considering whether the amount of compensation the landlord has awarded was reasonable we have considered this Service’s remedies guidance. We have also considered the impact on the failures on the resident and the actions the landlord took to put things right.
  16. The landlord did not ensure its contractors had repaired the boiler as part of its stage 1 response. The amount of compensation it offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident between April and November 2023. While the resident stopped chasing up the boiler repairs in July 2023 it should have been aware of whether its contractor has completed the repairs. The landlord’s approach at stage 2 was reasonable. It was appropriate that it increased its offer of compensation. It was also proactive in working with contractor B to resolve the issues with the boiler. The repairs were completed on the date it said they would be.
  17. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman would normally consider the landlord’s response to the boiler repairs to be maladministration. As the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s actions between April and November 2023 were unreasonable, this Service would usually recommend a figure in the £100 to £600 range. The landlord’s increased compensation award of £350 falls within the mid-point of that range. There was no permanent impact caused by the landlord’s failings as its contractor repaired the boiler the day after it issued its stage 2 response. That amount is reasonable and reflects that there was an adverse failing in its landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.
  18. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident was entitled to a further £110 in compensation which she has not received. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy Contractor A should have paid that to her. If the landlord’s offer of compensation had included or replaced that amount it had the opportunity to explain that to the resident, as she asked for a detailed breakdown of the amounts awarded at both stages. It did not provide a detailed breakdown. In not arranging those payments of £90 and £20 respectively from its contractor there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
  19. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £110 in compensation. While that amount is slightly higher than the banding for service failure in our remedies guidance it is proportionate to the landlord’s failing. It will put the resident in the position she would have been in had it worked with contractor A to make those payments.

Complaint handling

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. They must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. If the resident requires an escalation, they should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If landlords cannot meet these timescales they must inform the resident, explain the delay and set a new deadline. The new deadline should not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy is broadly in line with the Code with 1 exception. It says it will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. If a complaint takes longer than 20 working days, it says it will set and agree a revised timescale. It should keep the resident updated on its progress.
  3. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 26 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the next day. It said it would respond as soon as possible but expected its response would be delayed. Under the Code the landlord’s stage 1 response was due by 11 May 2023. Under its own complaint policy, it should have responded by 25 May 2023. The landlord should have contacted the resident to agree a revised timescale for its response but it did not do that. It was not appropriate that it did not update the resident about her complaint.
  4. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 17 August 2023 and asked when it would provide its response. It apologised for the delay the same day and said it would try to provide its response the next week. Given it was already over 3 months late, that response was not appropriate because it did not give the resident certainty about when it would reply. When it did not provide its response without a further update it likely caused the resident to lose confidence in it. She contacted this Service on 18 September 2023 to ask us to intervene. We wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2023 and reminded it of its obligations under the Code.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 November 2023, over 6 months after it should have responded. It awarded her £25 compensation for that delay. Using this Service’s remedies guidance as a benchmark that amount would reflect a minor failure. Given its failure to keep her updated and the length of the delay, the amount of compensation awarded for poor complaint handling was not appropriate. It is unclear why but the landlord did not make that payment.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 November 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint. Under the Code it should have provided its stage 2 response by 9 December 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 3 January 2024 because it had not acknowledged or responded to her complaint. That was not appropriate and showed it had not learnt from its previous failings at stage 1. We contacted the landlord and it acknowledged her complaint on 11 January 2024. It asked the resident to allow it until 31 January 2024 to respond. She agreed to that timescale.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response over a week later than it said it would, 8 February 2024. It had not agreed a further extension with the resident. It missed an opportunity to consider its position that £25 reflected its complaint handling at stage 1. As it had not made that payment it effectively rescinded it at stage 2 because the compensation it awarded related to the boiler repairs, not its complaint handling. In doing that it did not show it understood the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident while attempting to obtain its response to her complaints.
  8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It delayed in providing its response at both stages of the resident’s complaint. During both delays it did not keep the resident updated about the status of her complaint. It was not appropriate that it did not respond at both stages until intervention from his Service.
  9. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to its poor complaint handling. That amount falls within the maladministration of this Service’s remedies guidance. 

Determination (decision)

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified within this report in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for making apologies
    2. Pay the resident a total of £360 in compensation in addition to any compensation already paid broken down as follows:
      1. £90 for the loss of heating and hot water in April 2023.
      2. £20 for contractor A’s missed appointment on 31 May 2023.
      3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.