London Borough of Enfield (202226164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226164

London Borough of Enfield

27 March 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom house that she lives in with her 3 young children.
The landlord’s heating contractor visited the property on 13 April 2022 to assess the boiler. The resident informed them that the heating was not working. The engineer advised the boiler was 18 years old and needed to be replaced. The engineer left 2 temporary electric heaters. Their inspection record noted they had left the boiler working.
On 5 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She asked for an update on when it would be fitting the new boiler. She said that the contractor had left 2 portable electric heaters, but she was concerned about the cost of using them.
The resident completed an online complaint form on 25 August 2022. She said:
1. An engineer had visited in March 2022 to inspect the boiler but was unable to repair it. Another engineer attended but was unable to repair the boiler. A third engineer visited and said the boiler was too old and needed replaced. They left her with portable electrical heaters.
2. She had 3 young children, 2 below school age.
3. The landlord had given her a number of excuses such as people being on holiday and the boiler was waiting to be signed off. She was still without heating 5 months later which was unacceptable.
4. She could not afford the cost of running electric heaters and wanted the landlord to fit the boiler urgently.
5. She had called several times for an update, but nobody had called her back.
6. She wanted an apology and compensation for the inconvenience of no heating for 5 months.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 1 September 2022. It said it had passed her complaint to the service area concerned who would contact her directly. It would respond to her within of 18 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive on 8 September 2022. She repeated her complaint points and said she was not happy with the service she had received. She had a response on behalf of the chief executive on 9 September 2022, which said her email had been forwarded to the complaints team.
On 29 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said it had been over 1 month since she had raised her complaint. The repairs team had not contacted her, and she was still without heating after 7 months.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in contacting her. It said it had found the matter more complicated than it had first thought. The contractor had been trying to get in touch with her since April but had realised it was using the wrong telephone number. It provided her with the contractor’s details and asked that she contact them to arrange a survey. It advised the boiler would be fitted about 14 days after the survey. It said it would get in touch with her the following week once it had considered her request for compensation.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It summarised the resident’s complaint and listed the following points:
1. It had booked a survey with its heating contractor in April 2022. The contractor had not carried out the appointment because they had the wrong telephone number and could not contact her. The landlord was unsure why this had happened or why they had not written to her about the appointment.
2. It offered compensation of £150 in recognition of its service failure, which had led to her experiencing an extended period without heating.
3. It had upheld her complaint and apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the issue and for the inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 January 2023. She advised she had wanted to wait until it had repaired the heating before responding to its stage 1 response and the offer of £150 compensation. The compensation offered did not cover the cost of her electric or the amount of time she had to spend chasing the repairs.
On 23 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the service she had received and wanted her complaint re-opened. Her electric bills had increased significantly because of the electric heaters and her boiler was still not working. The landlord’s offer of compensation was insufficient and did not consider the inconvenience it had caused.
The resident called the landlord on 25 January 2023. She reported that her boiler was leaking and that she was unable to control the leak. An engineer attended the same day and found a leak inside the boiler. Their notes said the boiler was 19 years old and not in good condition, but they had managed to get it working. The resident sent another email on 25 January 2023. She told the landlord that water from the boiler had damaged electrical items she had on her counter and caused damage to the counter itself.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 23 January 2023. It confirmed it would provide a response within 30 working days.
The heating contractor attended on 6 February 2023 and installed the new boiler. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 February 2023 and reported that the heating was not working. She emailed again on 8 and 9 February 2023. The contractor attended and fixed the boiler on 10 February 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023. She told it she had not been sent the stage 2 complaint response and the 30 day time limit had passed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 February 2023. It summarised its stage 1 response and listed the following points:
1. The contractor had installed a new boiler on 6 February 2023.
2. The resident notified the landlord of an issue with the boiler on 7 February 2023. The contractors visited and investigated the problem. The heating was restored on 10 February 2023.
3. It understood she was unhappy with how it had handled her request for compensation. It had increased its compensation offer to £300 for the extended period of time she was without heating.
4. It asked the resident to provide evidence to support the additional compensation payment for damaged items.
5. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 and 24 February 2023. She advised she was still unhappy with the level of compensation, the amount did not cover all of its errors or the impact on her. The water that had leaked from the boiler and damaged her laptop. If the landlord had repaired the boiler when it should have it would not have leaked. She asked the landlord to inform her when it would be considering her request for additional compensation.
The landlord sent a second stage 2 response on 13 March 2023. It acknowledged that the resident did not want to accept the £300 compensation it had offered. The offer was based on the period she had to use electric heaters. It also covered its service failures as well as the trouble, stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said its position remained the same. The £300 had been calculated in line with its compensation policy and was offered as a full and final settlement for all matters listed in her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 15 March 2023. She listed the following points:
1. The landlord had been very selective with the issues it had mentioned it its stage 2 response. It had ignored the fact that the boiler had flooded and damaged her laptop due to its failings.
2. It had stated that the £300 was compensation for the cost of running the heaters and distress and inconvenience. She felt the amount was not sufficient.
3. It had asked her to send proof of her damaged laptop which she had. The landlord could have contacted the heating contractor to ask why the boiler flooded.
4. It had failed to comply with its complaint procedure, she had to notify the landlord on several occasions on the dates to respond.
5. She asked the landlord to take the points raised into account and reconsider its compensation offer.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It told her it had considered her complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure. It would not be considered further. It attached a copy of the final response, which included the contact details for the housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has complained that her children suffered illnesses and colds during the period when the property was without heating. The Ombudsman does not dispute this but, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the broken boiler and the illnesses. A determination relating to damages caused to the children’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this. The Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of any failures by the landlord.
The landlord’s records indicate that the engineer left the boiler working after the visits on 14 April 2022 and 25 January 2023. However, there is no evidence that it worked through the rest of the period. Notes from both visits confirmed the boiler was old and needed replaced. In addition, the engineer left portable electric heaters which is evidence that the heating was either not working or that they expected it to fail. The resident disputes any assertion by the landlord that the heating worked between April 2022 and February 2023. Her repeated contacts informing the landlord the heating was not working support her position. The landlord did not undertake any visits between April 2022 and January 2023 it is therefore unable to provide any evidence to the contrary. In both complaint responses it has acknowledged the resident had been left without a working boiler for an extended period. Considering the evidence provided by both parties it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that there was no heating in the property between the dates outlined by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal obligation on the landlord to keep heating installations in repair and proper working order. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, a dwelling should be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards. A property without a functioning heating system would present an excess cold, category 1 hazard, which poses a risk of harm to the occupiers.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of heating and hot water. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it is responsible for the repair of boilers. Loss of heating and hot water is classed as an emergency repair which should be rectified within 24 hours.
In their notes from 14 April 2022 the engineer stated that parts for the boiler were no longer available and that it needed to be replaced. It is evident the landlord asked the contractor to undertake a survey. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate what additional actions it took after receiving the report. It would have been reasonable for it to have contacted the resident to discuss the engineer’s findings and to explain what steps it was going to take to rectify the problem. After the initial visit the resident had to consistently chase the landlord for an update. However, she received no information, which left her feeling frustrated and worried about having to use electric heaters.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will aim to schedule faster repairs when there are vulnerabilities or special needs in a property. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2022, she told the landlord she had no heating and that she had 3 small children. However, it still took no action to resolve the issue. Between the 25 August 2022 and 23 January 2023, the resident sent 7 emails reporting her heating not working. It was unacceptable that the landlord failed to adequately respond to these reports in line with its maintenance and repairs policy. It was also unreasonable that it did not update the resident on the cause of the delay or when it was going to repair the heating.
The landlord based the initial part of the delay on the contractor not having the correct telephone number for the resident. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the contractor. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. From the evidence available it is not clear when this issue with the telephone number became apparent. However, the resident’s repeated requests for updates should have prompted it to investigate the issue. Landlords are expected to manage and proactively communicate with its contractors. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence that this happened, which indicates a lack of oversight of its repairs process.
Having acknowledged the errors with the phone number, it is disappointing the landlord did not increase its role in the repair process. Instead, on 30 September 2022, it asked the resident to make an appointment for a survey directly with the contractor. Its records do not show when the appointment was made or when the survey took place, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. The fact that it did not fix the heating until February 2023 shows it had not increased its oversight of the repair. This demonstrates a failure to learn from its previous mistakes, which left the resident without heating throughout the autumn and into the winter months. It also did not provide any justification to the resident for the delay that followed 30 September 2022, which would have contributed to her distress. However, of most frustration to the resident was the landlord’s apology and assertion in its stage 1 response that it had resolved the issue, when in fact she still had no heating.
This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps deliver clear, effective, and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process.
There is extensive evidence throughout this case of the resident having to chase updates on the works. She regularly called the customer care team who then raised tasks for officers connected to the case to call her, but this did not happen. She chased the landlord on 5 May 2022, 26 May 2022, 30 June 2022 and 10 August 2022. In all 4 contacts the resident asked for an update on the boiler and expressed her concern about running the electric heaters. The landlord’s records show that the calls on 26 May 2022, 30 June 2022 and 10 August 2022 were all escalated within the organisation with a request to update the resident. However, nobody returned her calls or provided her with an update.
On 30 June 2022, the repair records indicate that the work order for the boiler was put on hold, no reason for this was present in the notes. This delay should have led to communication with the resident to keep her informed, not doing so was inappropriate. This was in addition to the previously stated evidence of poor communication between the landlord and contractor that resulted in significant delays to the repairs process.
There was also evidence of delays in responding to the resident’s emails. She sent an email to the landlord on 3 October 2022 and asked for a response. She had to send 2 further emails before it replied on 21 October 2022. The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on numerous occasions, the lack of response added to the frustration and distress she experienced.
At stage 1 the landlord offered £150 compensation for the extended period without heating. The resident was unhappy with this offer, she said it was insufficient and did not cover the inconvenience of no heating in a home with young children. In response to the resident’s dissatisfaction it increased the offer to £300 in its stage 2 response. In the second stage 2 response It confirmed the £300 was a full and final settlement for all matters listed in her complaint. The offer of compensation was insufficient. It did not cover the additional electric costs, the distress and inconvenience of not having heating or the poor communication. The minimal increase in the compensation between stage 1 and stage 2 was evidence of the landlord’s failure to learn from its mistakes and put things right.
The landlord failed to comply with its legal obligations. It allowed an avoidable and unnecessary excess cold hazard to persist in the property over a period of 304 days. In doing so, it exposed the resident and her family to an increased likelihood of harm. It failed to comply with the requirements of its own repairs policy and did not communicate effectively with the resident or its contractors. The resident continually told it she had young children and was concerned about the cost of running electric heaters. However, the landlord did not consider the vulnerabilities in the household. Nor did it provide any advice, guidance, or signposting on where the resident may have been able to obtain financial support.
Taking all matters into account, this Service finds severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the boiler.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days. For complex cases it could take up to 20 working days to respond. If it was going to exceed 20 working days, it would contact the resident to advise when it would respond. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 30 working days from the date of acknowledgement.
The resident made her complaint on 25 August 2022. When she had not received a response 1 month later, she emailed to say she had not been contacted by the repairs team or had a complaint response. The landlord responded on 30 September 2022 and apologised. It said it was considering her request for compensation and would respond the following week. However, the landlord failed to respond when it said it would. It did not provide its stage 1 response for another 17 working days. In total it took 41 working days to respond. which was outside the timescale of its own policy and those of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In the stage 1 response the landlord gave no valid reason to indicate why its response was delayed, neither did it offer any reason for the delay in repairing the heating. Further, the Code requires complaint responses to detail any outstanding actions. The landlord did not acknowledge it had still not repaired the heating and failed to advise the resident when it would be fixed. The stage 1 response did not meet the requirements of the landlord’s policy and did not adequately address the significant delays. Overall, the response failed to put things right for the resident and was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the first stage.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 January 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 2 February 2023. This was 14 working days beyond the required 5 days. The stage 2 response was issued 34 days after the resident had escalated her complaint, which was outside the timescales of the landlord’s policy. It apologised for its lack of communication and for the extended period the resident did not have a working boiler. However, it again failed to provide an explanation for the significant delay.
As part of its complaint response, it asked the resident to forward details of the items damaged when the boiler had leaked, which she did. She also suggested that if the landlord had repaired the boiler within an appropriate timescale, it would not have leaked and damaged her possessions.
It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered the resident’s damaged items. It should have accepted that not replacing the boiler was the likely reason for the leak that led to the damage. It would have been appropriate to have assisted the resident to make a claim against its public liability insurance. Not doing so was inappropriate and left the resident feeling frustrated.
The landlord did not comply with the timescales in its complaints policy. It failed to offer redress that recognised the impact its failures had on the resident and her family. Whilst it apologised for the extended delays, the complaint responses did not offer adequate explanations for the extended period the resident was without heating. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
In In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the Chief Executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2,250. This is inclusive of the £300 already offered. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
3. £1250 for the period between 13 April 2022 and 10 February 2023 the resident was without heating.
4. £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
5. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s communication.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Undertake a review to determine if there are other cases where boiler works have been paused that may require additional action.
2. The review must also consider a sample of cases where the landlord has conducted boiler surveys and decide if its subsequent actions were appropriate, or if its approach should be adjusted.
3. The landlord must provide a copy of its findings to this service.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should assist the resident to make an insurance claim against its public liability insurance. If a claim is not possible or has been prejudiced by the delay, the landlord should consider compensating the resident for the items damaged by the leak.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.