Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202323378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323378

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

7 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The repair required to the resident’s boiler and the resident’s reported increase in energy usage.
2. The resident’s issues with a decoration voucher.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 24 June 2002. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property has 3 bedrooms. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities. Throughout the duration of this complaint the resident had a representative. For the purposes of this report, the representative and resident will be both be referred to as the resident.
On 6 October 2022, the resident reported that the boiler in the property repeatedly came on by itself. The resident was concerned about the economic impact of this.
The contractor attended to investigate the boiler, which it then repaired on 17 October 2022. The resident reported that she was still having issues on 22 October 2022. The landlord recalled the contractor on 24 October 2022 but was unable to access the property. The contractor repaired the boiler again on 8 December 2022.
On 29 October 2022, the resident reported difficulties using a decorating voucher which had previously been issued.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 January 2023 with regards to the lack of response in relation to the decoration voucher.
On 20 February 2023, during a phone call with the resident, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence to show an increase in energy usage. It was during this call that the resident said she raised a further complaint about the boiler issue. The resident provided a current energy bill on 21 March 2023. The landlord responded to say it needed further evidence to consider compensation. The resident responded on 30 March 2023 to advise his energy supplier for the previous year no longer existed.
On 5 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to request escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord said it had not logged any complaint at the time, and it would therefore log a complaint.
It provided its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It confirmed it had reissued the decoration voucher as the earlier one had expired. The landlord confirmed that while it had repaired the boiler, there were delays in its communication. It confirmed it had requested evidence of increased energy costs, but the resident had not provided this. It confirmed the resident had the power to isolate the boiler and turn the radiators off at any time. It offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 6 June 2023 and requested £500 compensation. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It agreed with regards to the boiler, that it had delayed in responding to emails at the time the resident raised the repair. It accepted it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to manually turn the boiler on each day.
2. It further accepted that making calls and sending emails would have been time consuming and stressful and therefore awarded a further £50 to reflect this.
3. It said while it would not ordinarily compensate for increased energy usage without evidence, as the energy supplier had gone out of business it awarded £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
4. With regards to the decorating voucher, it confirmed it had reissued the voucher and sent further instructions on how redeem the voucher.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said the issues had caused stress, sleepless nights, and frustrations. The resident requested £500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it would respond to emergency repairs, which include a total loss of space heating within 4 hours and non-emergency repairs within 10 working days.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. At stage 1 it will contact the resident within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, its ‘review’ stage, it will respond within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the repair required to the resident’s boiler and the resident’s reported increase in energy.

The resident reported an issue with the boiler on 6 October 2022. As the resident had heating, the landlord appropriately logged this as non-emergency repair and attended, in line with its policy, on 15 October 2022. It inspected the issue, and the contractor carried out repairs on 17 October 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported on 22 October 2022 that the repair was not successful, and the landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to attend on 24 October 2022. While it was unfortunate the contractor did not fix the issue on the first occasion, the landlord arranged for its contractor to reattend in a reasonable timeframe.
However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the further appointment to the resident, which meant the resident was not home when the contractor attended. The landlord needs to ensure it communicates appointments to resident’s, not doing so ultimately caused a delay in the contractor repairing the boiler.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November to ask if the contractor had attended to resolve the issue, which it had not. While there is no evidence to show that the resident chased the landlord during this time, it highlights a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its contractors, who should have informed the landlord it was unable to gain access to the property. While it is positive that the landlord did check with the resident whether the repair had been completed, it should not be in a position whereby it has to contact the resident to check the status of a repair.
Furthermore, despite the resident confirming the repair was outstanding on that same date, the landlord did not raise a further appointment until 3 December 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the necessary repair at the earliest opportunity following 11 November 2022 and not almost a month later. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective and robust system in place to track and monitor repairs. Not doing so caused a delay in the contractor fixing the boiler.
The landlord arranged a further appointment for 7 December 2023, despite the resident confirming he was not in fact available. This is a further example of a lack of effective communication with resident which caused a further delay in completion of the repair and led to the resident raising a formal complaint.
The contractor completed the repair on 8 December 2023. This was 35 working days after the resident had reported the original repair had not worked and outside of the 10 working days period set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident had heating during that period, it was not appropriate for the landlord to leave the resident without a repair and its delay further highlights a lack of an effective system to track repairs.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 February 2023 and confirmed the evidence required for the landlord to consider a reimbursement of energy costs. This was reasonable in the circumstances. A landlord cannot be expected to reimburse energy costs where there is no evidence to suggest an increase in usage.
The resident provided the requested evidence to the landlord on 23 February 2023, yet the landlord did not respond until 16 March 2023 to say the evidence did not show an increase in energy usage. Not only was the landlord’s response delayed, but it was also unhelpful. It would have been useful for the landlord to have set out the evidence it did require from the resident to assess her eligibility for compensation. Not doing so caused the resident to spend further time chasing the landlord for clarification.
After receiving clarification, the resident responded on 30 March 2023 to explain her energy company had gone out business the previous year and she therefore did not have access to the energy bills required from the previous year to prove an increase in usage. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to that email. This is unreasonable and showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said the resident had never provided the evidence requested to show the increase in energy usage. This highlights a lack of effective record keeping given that the resident had provided evidence and set out why she could not provide the specific evidence requested by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord set out that the resident could have turned the radiators off and isolated the boiler at any point. While that may have been the case, this response was unhelpful especially given that it was the landlord’s own lack of effective repairs system that caused the delay in boiler repair in the first place. Furthermore, the landlord had never set out this position to the resident when she first mentioned her concern about an increase in energy usage when she first reported the repair. The landlord’s response on this occasion lacked empathy.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately offered £50 to the resident to cover any increase in energy usage. While it may have been useful to have offered this at the earlier opportunity when the resident had said she could provide no evidence, this offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
Furthermore, it offered the resident a further £50 compensation for its recognised service failure and the inconvenience caused to the resident. Bringing the compensation offer to £100 was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, while the landlord initially attended swifty to repair the boiler, when the repair failed there was a short delay in which the resident had to chase the landlord to complete the repair. With regards to the request for reimbursement for the increase in energy cost, the landlord delayed in responding for a significant period which caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for a response.
However, the landlord has acknowledged and identified its failings in this case. Furthermore, it has taken the following steps to ‘put things right’ by:
1. Offering appropriate levels of compensation as the case evolved.
2. Offering apologies where it was appropriate to do so.
3. Providing explanations for what happened.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s issues with a decoration voucher.

The Ombudsman understands that the resident was issued with a decoration voucher in 2020 following some repairs completed in the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2022 to say she had attempted to use the voucher but due to the passage of time, it had expired. It is important to note that given the passage of time, the landlord was under no obligation to reissue the voucher, however, it has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident’s email with regards to this issue. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided a response as to whether it would reissue the voucher or not.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 January 2023 and 15 February 2023, as she had not received a response about this issue. Landlord’s need to ensure they respond to resident’s a timely manner. Not doing so caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord. This was a further missed opportunity for it to set out if it intended to reissue the voucher or not.
The landlord reissued the decoration voucher on 21 May 2023. Given it was not the landlord’s fault the voucher had expired, it was reasonable for it to reissue the voucher to the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord to say the family had trouble redeeming the voucher as the resident herself could not attend to redeem the voucher. The landlord helpfully contacted the decoration centre to explain the situation and provided the resident with instructions on how to redeem the voucher.
While the landlord was under no obligation to reissue the decoration voucher, it did delay in responding to the resident for a 6 month period during which time the resident had to spend time chasing the landlord for an update.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s issues with the decoration voucher.
A compensation order has made been for £25 to reflect the delay experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint in relation to the boiler issue on 18 December 2022 and a formal complaint about the decoration voucher on 7 January 2023, yet the landlord did not log either of those as a complaint. Given that the resident had explicitly set out that she wished to raise complaints about these, it was not appropriate for the landlord to ignore the request and not log the complaint. Not logging the complaint delayed the resident pursuing the issues through the formal complaint procedure.
She then chased the decoration voucher complaint again on 15 February 2023 and discussed the boiler complaint with the landlord on 20 February 2023. Yet, again, the landlord did not log either complaint. This was a further opportunity for the landlord to log both issues as formal complaints.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that a complaint must be acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until she contacted them again on 5 May 2023 to request escalation of the complaint. This was 5 months after the resident raised the first complaint. The landlord’s complete disregard of the resident’s complaint was not appropriate and the landlord’s failure in this instance should encourage further learning in its complaint handling processes.
The landlord logged the complaint on 9 May 2023 and provided its response, in line with its policy on 22 May 2023.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 6 June 2023 and the landlord provided its response, 32 working days later, on 21 July 2023. This was outside of the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code and therefore not appropriate.
Furthermore, the Code stipulates that if a landlord cannot provide a response within the set timescales, it must inform the resident and specify when it will provide a response. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it took such action. This lack of communication demonstrated a disregard for the resident’s complaint and was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £250, made up of the following:
1. £150 for not logging both complaints within the set timescales.
2. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
3. £50 for time and trouble taken.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of repair required to the resident’s boiler and the reported increase in energy usage which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s issues with the decoration voucher.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff from the landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £275, made up of the following:
1. £25 for its handling of the decoration voucher.
2. £250 for its complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in the handling of the boiler issue and reported increase in energy usage, the landlord should pay the £100 compensation offered if it has not already done so.