London Borough of Hillingdon (202204024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204024

London Borough of Hillingdon

29 February 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the thermostat, radiators, and boiler.
2. The resident’s associated complaint and compensation request.

Background

The resident’s tenancy started on 24 April 2019. It became a secure flexible tenancy after 12 months for five years. The resident experienced issues with her thermostat, radiator, and boiler. This included:
1. the thermostat not being connected to the boiler in 2019 and being set to 18 degrees celsius once it was repaired. She also complained about the time taken to connect it to the boiler and damage to her decorations
2. the resident’s boiler broke down in 2021
3. a radiator leak in February 2022.
The resident raised a complaint on 1 April 2022 in which she explained:
1. the contractor had failed to install a properly working thermostat which had caused damage to decoration when it was installed in 2019. Since then she was forced by her landlord to use electricity to heat her water because of a faulty thermostat that increased her energy bills
2. the contractor had not conducted gas safety checks or kept the heating system in proper working order
3. the contractor replaced a defective valve in March 2022
4. the landlord was responsible for a radiator leak that had caused damage in her home
5. she lost income as she had to take three days’ holiday when the landlord’s contractor repaired her radiator.
The resident asked her landlord to:
1. replace the radiators and the boiler
2. offer compensation for her heating costs
3. offer compensation for loss of income and £600 for damaged contents if her insurer refused.
The landlord responded on 21 April 2022 and said:
1. it was not aware of when the resident experienced issues with hot water or the radiators as the resident had not said when she reported these
2. its contractor isolated a radiator leak in her bedroom on 28 February 2022 after the resident reported the leak
3. its contractor completed the radiator repair on 24 March 2022 when it gained access
4. its contractor replaced a defective valve in March 2022 when the resident told it she experienced issues with the heating system
5. the boiler was in working order at the time and its policy was to maintain boilers unless they could not be economically repaired
6. it could not agree to compensation for her heating costs.
The resident responded to her landlord in her escalation and alleged that:
1. the landlord’s previous contractor replaced the thermostat and fixed it at 18 degrees celsius
2. she had no heating in the summer of 2019 as the landlord had not connected the thermostat to the boiler
3. she had to heat water using electricity in the summer of 2019 as there was no boiler and this cost £47 or more in energy costs compared to her gas usage
4. she could not recall a gas safety inspection in 2021 and the contractor did not leave paperwork after its visits
5. the gas safety inspection report from 2022 showed her ‘ELI reading’ failed but the contractor never resolved this
6. the radiator leak in February 2022 caused damage and a loss of £96 of income because she had to take time off work to allow the repairs
7. her insurer would not cover the fixtures and fittings and was disputing her contents claim
8. the landlord delayed the replacement of a radiator after the February 2022 leak until March 2022 which meant that she was without the use of a bedroom for a time
9. she experienced additional costs of over £200 between 2020 to 2021 because of excessive heating costs.
The landlord issued its final response on 18 May 2022, within which it said:
1. it could not offer compensation for the period the resident was without hot water or heating as this was an insufficient period
2. it replaced the radiator in the bedroom on 24 March 2022 having isolated the leak on 28 February 2022
3. it repaired the boiler fan on 15 March 2021 and its policy was to repair it until this was no longer economically practical.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord replaced the resident’s boiler in November 2022, and it fitted a new thermostat.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and the scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”

The resident complains that when she moved into the property in the Spring of 2019, the boiler was not commissioned nor was it wired to the thermostat. She said the landlord delayed the rewiring and when it did repair it, the contractor caused damage to her decorations. The resident complained about this on 1 April 2022. As these issues were not raised within a reasonable time, which is normally six months, the Ombudsman has not investigated them.
Secondly, the resident has referred to leaks in the property in January 2021. The resident did not complain until April 2022, which was over a year later. As this was not raised within a reasonable time the Ombudsman has not investigated it.
The resident explained some concerns that she would be made homeless for complaining as she only had a fixed-term tenancy. However, the resident is still a fixed term tenant and has made complaints. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord would have evicted the resident for complaining. Indeed, that would be unreasonable. On this basis, the Ombudsman will not investigate these complaints as they were not raised within a reasonable time.

The landlord’s response to the repairs to the thermostat

Once the boiler was connected to the thermostat in July 2019, the resident states it was set to 18 degrees celsius. The resident’s account was that the contractor who attended advised her not to change this or press ‘the middle button’. On this basis, the resident said she did not touch the thermostat. In her complaint, the resident explained that the temperature remained at 18 degrees celsius which caused high heating costs.
The landlord was required to repair the thermostat within a reasonable time from the date it had been given notice that it was not in proper working order. However, there is no evidence that the thermostat required repair. The thermostat would not be in proper working order where the temperature in the property could not be changed. However the evidence here is that the thermostat was set at 18 degrees celsius and was not changed. That is not evidence that the thermostat was not in proper working order.
Landlords often advise residents to keep their heating at around 18 degrees celsius to ensure the home is adequately heated and to prevent condensation. For example, the Met Office states: ‘Ideally you should heat your home to a temperature of at least 18 degrees celsius. This is particularly important if you have reduced mobility, are 65 or over, or have a health condition, such as heart or lung disease. Having room temperatures slightly over 18°C could be good for your health.
On this basis, the Ombudsman is not able to conclude that the landlord failed to repair the thermostat.

The leaking radiator

The resident states that she had a power cut on 26 February 2022. The resident noted that the ceiling was wet. It is not clear if the resident contacted the landlord on 26 or 28 February 2022 from her account.
The landlord’s repair records state that the resident reported an uncontrollable leak from the bedroom radiator on 28 February 2022. Under the landlord’s policy, it was required to attend within four hours. The job sheet suggests the repair was reported at 7:54 pm and the cap was isolated on the same date at 8:22 pm. The boiler had to be switched off as this was causing the electricity to trip.
The radiator was renewed on 24 March 2022. The resident has also stated that the delay in renewing the radiator, over three separate appointments, meant that she had to take annual leave. The resident also commented that she was not able to use the bedroom until the radiator was reinstated.
Tenants are responsible for allowing landlords access to complete repairs. Compensation will not usually be due for this under the terms of the tenancy. The Ombudsman would not usually order compensation for loss of annual leave unless the number of appointments to complete a repair was excessive and unnecessary. In this case, there appears to have been 3 appointments:
1. The first appointment was on 28 February 2022 to isolate the leak and turn off the boiler
2. The landlord attended to fully replace the radiator on 7 March 2022 but was unable to do so as there was no space in the bedroom. The notes say that the resident had a ‘bad back’ and so the operative queried if the contractors should attend to move the furniture for the resident. The job sheet states the work should be booked as a 90-minute, 2-man job.
3. The final appointment was on 24 March 2022, when the radiator was replaced. The landlord was not obliged to arrange a third appointment to assist in moving around the household contents. It was reasonable that it did this.
The Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord should be responsible for compensation here. It acted appropriately and the repair to the radiator would have been completed within 6 working days on just two appointments had the contractors not needed to reattend.
The resident states her household goods and contents were damaged by the leak. She went onto explain that her insurer did not want to pay for the damage as the loss was not caused accidentally.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that where a claim is made to a contents insurer it will assess whether the damage to the household goods and contents resulted from one of the perils listed in the policy, such as escape of water, accidental damage or floods. Where the claim is covered, the insurer would usually be able to sue the party at fault. This is called subrogation. The Ombudsman cannot offer further comment on this and has not seen evidence of an insurance claim. The resident can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service about her insurer’s decision.
When an uncontrollable leak occurs, landlords will be responsible for the damage to the structure and exterior of the property, as well as its own fixtures and fittings, as part of their repair obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement. A landlord may be responsible for damage to household goods and contents where it knew there was a repair issue which was causing damage but failed to repair it within a reasonable time.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to say that an inspection took place to ascertain what damage had been caused to the ceiling and throughout the property. This is a failure. However, the indication here is that the damage was to the contents. Given that the time to isolate the radiator and stop the leak appears to be hours, rather than days, the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord is responsible for the damaged contents, as it appears to have acted quickly in line with the repairs policy.
It therefore follows that there is no basis to order the landlord to pay for the resident’s loss of holiday entitlement or compensation for the household goods or contents.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler

The resident stated that the boiler was in excess of 30 years old. At the time she brought the complaint she was seeking an upgrade to the boiler and radiators as well as compensation for increased heating.
A landlord is not usually responsible for upgrading a boiler unless:
1. it is not in proper working order and a replacement is the only effective way to repair it
2. the property cannot be adequately heated with the boiler and there are Housing Health and Safety risks associated with the cold
3. the property does not meet the minima in the Decent Home Standard
There have been several repairs raised in respect of the boiler. The resident listed the following dates as reporting issues with the boiler:
1. 26 November 2020
2. 15 January 2021
3. 15 March 2021
4. 21 January 2022
The Ombudsman notes that the gas safety record from 13 January 2022 records there was a failed ‘ELI reading’. The record noted the landlord’s contractor had inspected the boiler and found it safe. The landlord repaired the boiler and kept it in good working order. In so doing the Ombudsman considers that it satisfied its legal obligations and acted appropriately.
The relevant provision of the Decent Home Standard provides the standard will not be met where:

“one or more key building components are old and, because of their condition need replacing or major repair”

“A building component can only fail to satisfy this criterion by being old and requiring replacing or repair. A component cannot fail this criterion based on age alone.”

It was accepted that the boiler was old however, the landlord indicated it did not require replacement at the point the complaint was responded to.
Following the report of the leak on 28 February 2022. The landlord came the same day and switched off the boiler as it was shorting the electricity. It is not clear when this was reinstated.
The landlord’s position was that the boiler could be economically repaired. The callouts alone do not demonstrate that the boiler was beyond economic repair. They were not so regular (daily or weekly) to indicate that the boiler needed to be replaced at that time.
The resident has stated that there has been some condensation-related mould in the property. However, the resident’s complaints about the thermostat (that the property was constantly heated to 18 degrees celsius) would suggest the property was adequately heated.
Whilst the landlord has since replaced the boiler, this is not evidence itself to confirm that its earlier decisions to repair it were wrong. Taken together, there is no evidence that the landlord has fallen short of its obligations.

The landlord’s complaint handling including the request for compensation

The landlord’s complaint policy required it to deal with complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 working days.
The resident complained to her landlord on 1 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2022 in line with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 April 2022 to say it needed more time to respond (to 5 May 2022). However, it appears to have provided its stage 1 response on the same date (21 April 2022). This was 11 working days after the date of the landlord’s acknowledgment which was 1 working day outside the provisions of the Code. The Ombudsman does not consider there will have been significant adverse affect from a 1 working day delay.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 4 May 2022 acknowledging her escalation request of 29 April 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 May 2022 – which was 13 working days later.
In the resident’s escalation letter she requested compensation for the cost of heating, damage to her possessions and loss of income. For the reasons set out above, the landlord was not wrong to decline the resident’s requests for compensation.
Overall the landlord declined to pay compensation for the resident’s heating bills. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord was not responsible for the resident’s energy costs. This is because there is no evidence the resident incurred these costs as a result of a failure by the landlord. Furthermore, the resident has not shown that her increased energy costs were down to the heating system compared to market price increases. The Ombudsman therefore finds no fault in the landlord not offering compensation for increased energy costs.
However, the landlord could have sign-posted the resident to support services that may have been available to her to help with energy bills, for example, the household support fund. It could have made her aware of any support available given her expressed concerns about her energy bills.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaints about the thermostat and boiler in 2019 or the leak in January 2021. This is because they were not raised with the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally six months.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
1. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s thermostat, radiators, and boiler
2. there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling or its response to the resident’s compensation request.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. review how it records repairs. The documents could be clearer on when repairs were actually reported and how they were reported
2. contact the resident to determine if there is any mould in the property or whether there are any repairs outstanding.