Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202004789)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004789

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

10 May 2021

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 regarding landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. a faulty boiler at her property.
2. her succession application.
3. her Subject Access Request.
4. the issues with her boiler affecting her health.
5. the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns related to her succession application.

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The resident’s concerns related to her succession application do not appear to have formed part of the formal complaint with the landlord and therefore, would not be reviewed in this investigation by the Ombudsman. It is noted that the resident has raised a separate complaint to the landlord in relation to these matters. If the resident remains dissatisfied once this issue has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure, she may wish to raise a separate case to the Ombudsman. For this reason, the issues related to the succession application and the resident’s concern that she had lost out on receiving benefits due to the delay will not be considered in this report.

The resident’s concerns related to her Subject Access Request.

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.

The resident has raised concerns about how the landlord has handled her Subject Access Request. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Therefore, this investigation report will not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Subject Access Request.

The resident’s claim that the issues with her boiler have affected her health.

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the issues with her boiler and her health, but this Service does not have the expertise, nor legally binding power, to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This could be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident should consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. For this reason, the resident’s claim that she could not apply for her benefits at an earlier date due to illness caused by the issues with the boiler will not be considered in this report. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation with her property may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives at a property maintained by the landlord. Her mother was the named tenant of the property, who passed away in 2019. The resident had applied to succeed the property at the time of the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 November 2019 to raise a complaint and advised the following:
1. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had reported that her boiler had been short-circuiting on 3 November 2019 and the landlord had not acted promptly to resolve the issue.
2. She had contacted the landlord in the early hours on 3 November 2019 as her electricity was cutting out and the lights in her property were not working. A contractor had attended but did not establish that the boiler was the issue, as the resident had managed to turn the lights in her property on at this stage. The lights tripped again when the boiler came on that day and the resident contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours repair service around 9pm, she was told to call the following morning. At this stage she had no heating or hot water.
3. She called the landlord on 4 November 2019 and was told that a contractor would attend that morning, she was then contacted at 1pm and was told that they would arrive in the afternoon. The contractor who attended refused to give their name and the resident did not feel comfortable allowing them into the property. She called the landlord again to arrange for a new emergency appointment and was advised that someone would attend the following day.
4. She explained that she had chased the contractors on 9 separate occasions and was told that they would attend on 8 November 2019 as an emergency. She then raised this to a manager who advised the contractors would attend the same day, but no one had attended.
5. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the conduct of the contractor who had attended. She explained that they had left a mess after looking at the boiler, been rude to her sister and failed to discuss what was happening in the property. She was unhappy that she had needed to call in the mornings for appointments when the out-of-hours service was meant to be a 24-hour service. She also advised that the contractor had failed to raise her complaint and declined her request to speak to manager.
6. She said that she had spent £40.00 topping up her electricity over two days in order to use electric heating, as she had no central heating. She asked the landlord to investigate her concerns and reimburse her for any unnecessary costs. She also asked for the part needed to be fitted that day as she understood this to be in stock.
The resident called the landlord a number of times following her complaint to follow-up on her boiler repair. A visit was scheduled to take place on 11 November 2019, but the staff member could not gain access, the resident later advised that she was in and the staff member had put a card through the letterbox of the property without knocking. A visit to the property took place on 20 November 2019 and the contractor installed a new boiler. They reported that no further work was needed following the installation.
On 26 November 2019, an appointment was raised as the resident reported having no hot water or heating. An appointment was carried out the following day and the contractor ordered further parts which were needed.
The landlord called the resident on 2 December 2019 to seek further information regarding the complaint. The resident said that the incorrect boiler had been installed. She had received this information from an external contractor. The landlord advised that it would follow-up on this matter. On 4 December 2019, the resident called to report that the electricity in her property was tripping again, this issue was reported as completed the following day.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord called the resident on 11 December 2019 following its stage one complaint investigation and explained the following:
1. It noted that the boiler repair was first raised on 3 November 2019 and a new boiler was installed on 20 November 2019. The records show that the resident wanted to be compensated for the lack of hot water and heating for 35 days. The landlord’s notes show that it checked this internally and this was actually around 17 days. The resident wished to be compensated for an increased electricity bill of £156. This was agreed by the landlord after reviewing the receipts which had been provided.
2. The resident wanted to be compensated £215.04 for her loss of earnings as she had not had any annual leave available at the time and had to take time off to attend repair appointments. The landlord agreed to compensate this amount as a goodwill gesture.
3. The resident also requested a payment of £8.21 for the hour she had needed to spend cleaning after the mess which had been left by engineers to her property. This was agreed as a gesture of goodwill.
4. The landlord’s records show that it offered £250 for its service failure, and £150 for the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this matter. It also agreed to arrange repairs for the outstanding works needed
5. The landlord said that it would not compensate the resident for the cost of a private engineer totalling up to £500 and £161.88 for the loss of useable rooms in the property. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation and asked to escalate the complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 December 2019 to acknowledge her complaint escalation. It confirmed that the resident would receive a response within 10-15 days, if this was likely to take longer a new response date would be agreed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 and 27 December 2019 and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not contacted her despite pipes in the property leaking and the faults with her new boiler. The emergency repair she had asked for was not showing on the contractors’ system. She explained that the contractors were meant to be attending on 27 December 2019, but she had needed to call back in order to raise the repair again. This repair was reported as completed on 28 December 2019.
On 7 January 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for not contacting her sooner. It confirmed that the delay in providing a complaint response was due to an unprecedented number of complaints it had needed to prioritise. It explained that it would update the resident as to when she would receive a complaint response.
The resident called the landlord on 14 January 2020 and explained again that the new boiler which had been fitted on 20 November 2019 was not safe as it kept cutting out. She said that she had hired her own contractor on 11 December 2019 who had established that the air resistant pipe from the old system had not been removed which was causing the problem. She had shown her contractor’s report to the landlord’s contractor, who was due to attend the property and fix the issue on 16 January 2020. The landlord confirmed that it would reimburse the cost of the external contractor and confirmed that an audit of the boiler would take place following the repair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 January 2020 and explained that she thought the issue would be resolved that day, although the contractor who attended had said that a part would need to be ordered. She remained dissatisfied as this had been discussed previously and she felt the issue should have now been resolved. She highlighted that the boiler needed to be attended to every few days and the longest it had lasted without filling with air was eight days. The landlord spoke to its contractors on 17 January 2020 and a new appointment was raised for 27 January 2020 for the part to be installed. The resident was made aware of this.
Between 3 February 2020 and 11 March 2020, the resident called the landlord on multiple occasions to report that her electricity was tripping every two to three days and she had no hot water or heating. In these cases, remedial work was carried out as an emergency repair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 March 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction that she had not been contacted despite numerous call-back requests. She had asked for an audit of her heating system to take place, but this had not been arranged. She then explained that she had no hot water or heating and could not afford to hire her own contractor and go through the process again. She explained that she had bled the air from her radiators for several hours and her boiler was showing different fault codes. The resident explained that the landlord’s contractors needed to alter the pipework to resolve the issue. She asked the landlord to provide her with the compensation as previously discussed and for the issues with her heating and hot water to be resolved. She said that this matter was distressing and that she had not received a complaint response.
A contractor attended the property on 13 March 2020 and identified the issues with the boiler. They recommended that the system was sealed and that a part was fitted to the boiler to prevent persistent airlocks.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 March 2020 and advised that the member of staff handling the resident’s complaint had been on long term sick leave and had therefore been unable to respond. It apologised for any additional delays this had caused. The landlord asked the resident to provide an update in relation to the repair appointments at the property. It also confirmed that a different member of staff would now be investigating this matter.
The resident responded the same day, she explained that a contractor had attended on 13 March 2020. The contractor advised that there were likely to be ongoing issues unless the underlying issue was addressed. She advised that she now had some heat at the bottom of her radiators, and this had been the case since January 2020, following the contractors supposed ‘final visit’. It had been agreed that an external auditor would attend due to the safety issues and the heating not functioning as it should.
The landlord responded on 25 March 2020 and apologised for the delay in its response. It explained that as its staff were now working from home it would be unable to call the resident to discuss the matter further. It advised that it was unable to see any information related to an external audit on its system, but it was aware that it had asked its contractors to attend and carry out remedial works. It explained that due to the impact of Covid-19, it was unable to say when these works would begin. It apologised for these additional delays and said that it would keep the resident updated.
The landlord’s records indicate that the final boiler repair was completed on 9 April 2020. The contractor advised that this should have resolved the issue with airlocks within the resident’s heating system.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2020 and asked if the previous staff member was now able to provide a response to her complaint. The landlord responded the following day and advised that the staff member was still absent.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 April 2020 a repair order was raised to inspect the boiler installation and system and report back any findings. This was put on hold and not reported as completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2020 and provided further information about the electricity usage during this period. She advised that she used electric heaters for around 142 days. A kitchen tile had previously been cracked during a contractor’s visit and marks had been left on her walls and ceiling following the boiler repair. She told the landlord that she would prefer to have decoration vouchers so that she could complete redecoration work herself. She expressed concern that the landlord would not complete this work to a satisfactory standard and the process would be lengthened.
The landlord’s records show that it advised the resident that it would only look to reimburse her for the electricity usage for the 25 days she had mentioned in her complaint. The resident wanted her complaint to be handled by the member of staff who was absent, who had agreed to reimburse the resident for the entire period and the invoices. The landlord advised that its response would not be likely to change as it had followed its compensation process. The resident then advised that she did not want the staff member she was speaking to handling the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and advised that she had been informed by the previous staff member handling the complaint that they would wait for the work to be completed and the auditor visit before confirming the final offer of compensation. She explained that the issues had a financial impact on her family and had caused further distress following the passing of her mother. She wanted the complaint to be handled by the previous member of staff and explained that the initial 25 days of no heating were not inclusive of the following months. She advised that if the landlord was only considering those 25 days, it had taken an unreasonable length of time to provide a response.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident on 7 July 2020 and advised the following:
1. It noted that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with its contractor as they failed to register her complaint or escalate her call to a manager. The landlord apologised for any distress caused and confirmed that this matter had been addressed with the member of staff.
2. It confirmed that the contractor had followed the correct procedure when leaving a card when they could not gain access to the property on 11 November 2019. The landlord confirmed that the contractor had taken a photo at the time as confirmation of their visit.
3. The landlord confirmed that it had provided the resident with two electric fan heaters during the time she was without heating and it was able to reimburse the resident for her additional costs up to the value of £115.
4. The landlord explained that it required its residents to provide unimpeded access to the area of work. The items that were moved were obstructing the area of work. It understood that this may have caused some inconvenience, but it would not be reimbursing the resident for the time she spent undertaking general housekeeping as this was a reasonable expectation of a landlord for their tenants to move their possessions to allow repair works to be completed. It asked the resident to move her belongings in future if repair works are needed.
5. The landlord apologised for the repair delays the resident had experienced. It noted that the resident had raised a separate complaint to its contractors who compensated her £47 for her time and trouble.
6. It confirmed that it had received the resident’s medical records and apologised for the additional distress the resident had experienced. It confirmed that it had taken this into consideration in its offer of compensation.
7. The landlord confirmed that it would reimburse the resident £543 for the cost of having an external engineer repair the fault.
8. When the contractor had repaired the fault, they had broken one of the resident’s kitchen tiles and created marks on the ceiling and walls. The landlord apologised for this and advised it had offered £70 compensation for her to rectify the décor which had been damaged.
9. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had asked for £215.04 compensation for the time she had spent off work as a result of the repair appointments. The landlord advised that it would only be able to consider the resident’s loss of earnings if it had been taken as unpaid leave from work. It had considered compensation for time and trouble.
10. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage two response. It advised that the staff member handling the complaint had been on long term sick leave since February 2020. A different member of staff had taken over the complaint on 2 March 2020, but the resident had requested to speak with the initial member of staff to discuss the resolution following their return to work.
11. The landlord advised that it would not consider reimbursing the resident’s rent during this period as she had not lost the use of any room. Based on the resident’s experiences, the landlord offered the resident £858.00 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 service failure,
  2. £50 time and trouble,
  3. £30 complaint delays,
  4. £70 contribution towards tiling and decorating costs,
  5. £115 electricity reimbursement,
  6. £543 reimbursement of the cost of the work carried out by a gas engineer arranged by the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation and contacted this Service. The resident and landlord attempted mediation between 13 October 2020 and 15 December 2020 and the resident provided a list of costs for which she wished to be compensated in order to resolve the complaint:
1. The landlord agreed to compensate the resident for the following:
  1. £267 for an increased electricity bill due to the lack of heating in the property. This amount considered her usual monthly charge and the £47 compensation she was offered following her complaint to the contractors directly.
  2. £8.21 for the hour she had needed to spend cleaning the property after a contractor’s visit.
  3. The cost of the paint she would need to purchase to redecorate parts of the ceiling damaged by contractors.
  4. £324 for the external engineer callout cost on 2 December 2019 after the contractors had failed to correctly diagnose the issues with the heating in the property.
  5. £219.60 attributed to the cost of a diverter valve installation by an external engineer.
2. The landlord did not agree to the following:
  1. A reimbursement of two weeks rent for the loss of rooms in the resident’s property prior to heaters being provided. She calculated this to be £323.76. The landlord said that it would not reimburse a full two weeks of rent payments, but it would offer £95 to account for the loss of two rooms for two weeks.
  2. The resident advised that she had lost her benefits for the weeks her family had fallen ill due to the issues with her heating. She calculated this figure to be £412.11. The landlord explained that it would not be willing to pay this, but should the resident provide evidence from the suppliers of her benefits that she had lost £412.11, it would pay this.
  3. The resident claimed that she had spent significant time contacting the landlord and asked for £430.08 compensation for her loss of earnings. The landlord explained that this was not an amount it was willing to contribute towards in this instance.
  4. The resident wanted the landlord to paint and retile the kitchen as her kitchen wall had been burnt and a tile in her kitchen had been shattered when the contractors had attended. The landlord said that it was not willing to pay for this but that it would continue to undertake any repairs which were needed.
3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s proposed offer of compensation and wanted to be reimbursed for her loss of earnings. The resident maintained that she wanted the kitchen to be repainted and tiled. She asked the landlord again to schedule an audit of the heating system at her property as some of her upstairs radiators were still not functioning as they should.

Assessment and findings

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the boiler and heating system at the property. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs should be carried out within 24 hours and in the case of loss of heating, temporary heating will be supplied within the 24-hour period. If replacement parts need to be sourced, ordered and fitted, the repair may take a further seven days. Routine repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days.
The landlord acknowledged various failures with its handling of the repairs to the resident’s boiler and apologised for poor workmanship by the contractor who installed the new boiler on 20 November 2019. It also acknowledged delays in completing follow-on work, causing increased energy usage to the resident, damage to the walls and ceiling at the property, and missed appointments. These matters were likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience and were not handled in line with the landlord’s repair policy or service standards.
The landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved her complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was evident that the landlord sought to put things right by apologising to the resident and considered her wishes when it came to agreeing the compensation figure to be paid during mediation initiated by this Service on 13 November 2020. The landlord agreed to compensate the resident for the majority of the items she had requested, including reimbursing her additional energy costs, the additional costs associated with an external engineer, time spent cleaning following a repair appointment and costs associated with paint needed for decoration. The outstanding matters which the landlord did not agree to were; a rent reimbursement for two weeks, redecoration of the kitchen and the resident’s loss of earnings during this period.
The landlord would not be expected to reimburse the resident’s rent in full for the two weeks she had no suitable heating in her property; this is because she was still able to use the property in part and it would be her responsibility to pay her rent in line with the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord, however, offered to pay £95 to account for the loss of two rooms for this two-week period. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that a proportion of the resident’s weekly rent would be paid where a room is unusable and is therefore an appropriate offer for this aspect of the complaint.
The resident wanted the landlord to retile and redecorate her kitchen in full. The landlord has accepted that damage was caused by its contractor but refused to retile and redecorate the kitchen in full. The landlord’s tenant handbook states that the internal decoration of the property would be the resident’s responsibility except when the damage is caused by other repairs the landlord has carried out. The landlord would not be expected to carry out a redecoration and retiling of the entire kitchen as its responsibility was only to make good the damage to decoration arising from its remedial work.
The resident had previously expressed concern that the landlord’s contractors would not carry out the redecoration work to a suitable standard and therefore she said she would prefer to receive decoration vouchers so that she could do this herself. The landlord, therefore, acted reasonably and in consideration of her wishes, by offering to pay the resident £70 for the cost of redecoration materials, or reimbursing the cost of paint to remedy the damage caused by its contractors’ actions.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that in exceptional circumstances a resident’s loss of earnings may be paid – for example, as part of a claim involving personal injury. This claim would usually be dealt with by the landlord’s insurers. The landlord would not necessarily be expected to reimburse the resident for her loss of earnings as a result of being present in the property to provide access for repair appointments. This is in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which states that a tenant is obliged to allow the landlord and its contractors access to the property to carry out repairs, and there is no evidence that the level of access required was excessive or unreasonable.
It is, however, noted that the landlord had agreed to pay the resident £215.04 as a gesture of goodwill in its stage one complaint response to account for her loss of earnings during this period, but later stated that it was not willing to contribute towards this during mediation. The landlord would not be expected to compensate the resident for her complete loss of earnings during the complaint period for the reasons set out above, but it would be expected to honour its previous offers of compensation or provide a satisfactory explanation as to why these offers had been withdrawn, which it does not appear to have done.
The landlord additionally offered £150 for overall service failure and £150 for time and trouble in its stage one response. At stage two of the landlord’s complaints process these figures were reduced to £50 each. The initial figures represented a medium to high level impact on the resident, whereas the lower figures represent a low impact in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord does not appear to have explained its reasons for reducing this compensation or changing its decision regarding the level of impact on the resident, it has therefore not acted reasonably in this regard.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a faulty boiler. In this case, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to compensate the resident for her actual financial loss and taken into consideration her wishes when awarding this. However, it has reduced and removed the financial compensation it had previously agreed to without providing a clear explanation and has not taken the impact its service failures may have had on the resident into consideration when awarding compensation at mediation.
In view of this, the landlord should compensate the resident £250 for its service failures, £150 for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the complaint, and £215.04 for her loss of earnings as previously agreed. The landlord should also complete an inspection of the resident’s boiler and heating system to identify any further issues and complete any repair work needed accordingly.
It is reasonable for the landlord to ask for the resident’s receipts for audit purposes and it is noted that the resident says she has already provided these. However, the landlord says it does not have a record of the receipts. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account that she has provided receipts, but we are unable to determine with certainty that the landlord received the receipts based on the information provided. The resident should provide these receipts again to the landlord to prevent any delay in compensation being paid. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that it holds accurate records of information sent by its residents.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one the resident should be provided with a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two the resident should receive a formal response within ten working days. If there is likely to be a delay a new timeframe will be agreed with the resident.
The resident initially raised her complaint on 6 November 2019. The landlord provided a stage one response over the phone to the resident on 11 December 2019. This was 15 working days outside of its ten working day timescale. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 December 2019 and advised that she would receive a response within 10-15 days. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 7 July 2020. This response was significantly outside of the landlord’s published timescales for a stage two response by 139 working days.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in providing its stage two response, it explained that this was due to a staff member being absent and offered the resident £30 compensation in view of this. The resident was not appropriately updated as to when she would receive a complaint response during this period, and the complaint was not allocated to a different member of staff until 16 March 2020 which was not in a timely manner. The landlord should have processes in place to ensure that any staff absence does not impact its ability to meet its service standards. The resident had only directly requested that the previous member of staff handled her complaint in July 2020 when it became apparent that the compensation offer had been reduced and therefore the complaint could have been handled by another member of staff at an earlier stage. The landlord’s explanation of the delay was not satisfactory, and the £30 compensation offered was not proportionate to the impact on the resident.
In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that updates are provided to residents where there is likely to be a delay in line with its complaints policy. It should also take steps to ensure that it has a system in place to prevent service standards falling when staff are absent. The compensation of £250 for inconvenience and distress caused by service failures is sufficient to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint, taking into account the landlord’s additional complaint handling service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a faulty boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint and level of compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged its service failures and made clear efforts to redress these by taking into consideration the resident’s wishes when offering compensation. However, the landlord set expectations that the resident would be compensated for her loss of earnings, overall service failure and her time and trouble at stage one and has not provided any explanation as to why this had been reduced or withdrawn at stage two or during mediation.
The landlord has not acted in line with its complaints policy when handling the resident’s complaint. There were significant delays and the resident needed to follow-up on the status of her complaint on multiple occasions.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident the following amounts of compensation:
  1. £267 to account for the resident’s increased energy bill during this period.
  2. £8.21 to account for the time the resident spent cleaning following a repair appointment.
  3. £324 for the external engineer callout cost on 2 December 2019
  4. £219.60 attributed to the cost of a diverter valve installation by an external engineer.
  5. £95 to account for the loss of two rooms for two weeks.
  6. Either £70 for the cost of decoration materials or, if receipts are provided, reimbursement for the cost of paint.
  7. £215.04 to account for her loss of earnings as agreed at stage one.
  8. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s overall service failure, as offered at stage one.
  9. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident has spent pursuing the repairs and complaint, as offered at stage one.
2. The landlord is to complete an inspection of the resident’s boiler and heating system to identify any further issues and complete any repair work needed accordingly.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure its decisions are fully explained at each stage of the complaint and that updates are provided to residents where there is likely to be a delay in line with its complaints policy.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record–keeping practices to ensure that it holds accurate records of information sent by its residents.
The landlord should take steps to ensure that it writes to its residents at each stage of the complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.