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

Ongo Homes Limited (202229742)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229742

Ongo Homes Limited

24 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The length of time it took the landlord to carry out boiler repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to the installation of a replacement boiler.
    3. The landlord’s response to a request for compensation.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint (or aspects of it) will not be investigated.
  2. The Scheme provides at paragraph 42(l) that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
  3. With regard to the 1st issue raised (length of time taken to carry out boiler repairs), the resident reported repairs in respect of the boiler at his property in December 2021 and January and May 2022. When the boiler broke down again in November 2022 the landlord determined that it could not reasonably be repaired again due to parts being obsolete and replaced it. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these issues and made a referral to this Service under case number 202212483. An investigation determined that there had been maladministration by the landlord. This issue has therefore already been decided upon and will not be revisited. It is now outside of jurisdiction.
  4. With regard to the 3rd issue raised (request for compensation), the question of an award being made for the time taken to carry out repairs and for failings in communication between landlord and resident, was also considered in that decision. The resident was awarded compensation of £200 for that element of his complaint. That issue is also now outside of jurisdiction and will not be considered further here.
  5. Whilst the previous investigation did consider how the landlord handled the replacement of the boiler (issue 2 above), there are aspects of this 2nd issue which were not referred to in the previous adjudication and the scope of investigation on that point is set out below.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of a 2 bedroom detached bungalow.
  2. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the boiler at the property had stopped working. He was left with no heating or hot water. The landlord ultimately made a decision to replace the boiler. The part needed to repair it was obsolete and previous repairs had already been effected in December 2021 and January and May 2022. The replacement works were completed on 2 December 2022.
  3. Prior to this, on 4 July 2022 the resident had already complained to the landlord about its handling of the earlier repairs. He then made another complaint on 13 December 2022 about the landlord’s recent attempts to repair the boiler again and its decision to replace it. The resident was also unhappy that the replacement system was not compatible with the use of a solar panel installed to the roof of the property. He had wanted the replacement to be ‘like for like’ and considered his energy bills would be negatively impacted by the landlord’s choice of replacement.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 December 2022 standing by its handling of the replacement in terms of the timescale and the decision to replace the boiler. In its 2nd stage response dated 16 February 2023 the landlord expanded upon this. It explained that the new boiler was “A rated” and met all compliance standards. It was fitted with thermostatic room controls to enable heat usage to be monitored and energy costs managed.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. At the outset he stated he wanted compensation for the time he spent without heating and hot water. He also wanted the landlord to be compelled to install a further replacement which was more efficient and less expensive to run.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. With regard to the 2nd issue, it is noted that whilst the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the boiler has already been considered, there remains outstanding an issue relating to its choice of equipment. The resident considers the new boiler to be inferior to the previous one. This is because it is not compatible with the use of a solar panel installed on the roof of this property. This 2nd issue will be considered from this perspective.

The landlord’s response to the installation of a replacement boiler.

  1. There is no dispute in this case that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the heating/hot water apparatus at the property. It has a duty to ensure the property benefits from a system which is fit for purpose and is maintained to an acceptable standard and which complies with regulations.
  2. The landlord has explained that the replacement decision was made for the following reasons: 
    1. There had been a number of repairs previously.
    2. There was a lack of available parts from an approved supplier.
    3. It was not guaranteed that the part sought would solve the problem even if it could be sourced.
    4. Without a reliable source of parts it was more likely that upon any further breakdowns the landlord (and resident) would be met with the same obstacle and consequent delays.
  3. The landlord concluded it was in the resident’s best interests that the boiler be replaced. This decision was sensible and logical under these circumstances and the landlord acted reasonably in this regard.
  4. In terms of the replacement boiler chosen by the landlord, it accepts the new one is not compatible with the solar panel. However it maintains that it is “A Rated” for energy efficiency and has controls designed to assist with managing its use (and therefore cost). Additionally, there is no suggestion that the boiler which was fitted fails to comply to necessary standards – only that it was not a similar “like for like” design to the previous one.
  5. The terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement require the landlord “To keep in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by us for space heating, hot water...” By installing a compliant boiler at the property to ensure an ongoing supply of facilities the landlord has met that requirement. The landlord has therefore acted reasonably. It must be clarified that what this report has assessed is the adequacy of the landlord’s response to the issue and whether it has adhered to the terms of the resident’s tenancy.  Irrespective of whether the boiler is compatible with the solar panel or not we have found no basis for concluding that the landlord’s action do not accord with its obligations in this case.
  6. In reaching this conclusion it should be noted that it is outside of the role of this Service to specify what apparatus should or could be installed in a property. We do not have the expertise to carry out such an exercise.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following issues are outside the jurisdiction of this investigation:
    1. The length of time it took the landlord to carry out boiler repairs.
    2. The landlord’s response to a request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the installation of a replacement boiler.