Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202220848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220848

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

29 January 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 a missing waterproof cover on an air source heat pump (ASHP).

Background

2. The resident occupies a semi-detached house. She has an assured tenancy and lives with her young children.
3. The ASHP was installed in the property on 5 March 2021.
4. During a safety inspection of the heating system on 14 November 2022, the engineer found a waterproof cover was missing from it. She switched the unit off for safety reasons and left the resident with 2 fan heaters. He reported the issue back to the landlord. The part was ordered on 15 November 2022 and fitted on 21 December 2022.
5. The resident was unhappy that the waterproof cover had not been picked up previously and lodged a formal complaint on 21 November 2022. The resident said:
   1. the cover should have been fitted when the ASHP was originally installed.
   2. an engineer serviced the heating system in January 2022 and did not see that the cover was missing.
   3. she wanted to know why the missing cover had not been seen and left in an unsafe condition.
   4. she was upset because her children could have touched the exposed wires and got hurt.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 November 2022. The landlord:
   1. apologised that the cover was missed twice.
   2. said it was unable to say why it happened.
   3. said it would review the matter internally for learning and ongoing training to prevent it from happening again.
   4. said the contractor would return to the property by mid-December 2022 to replace the cover.
7. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said the stage 1 did not explain why the cover was missed twice, or acknowledged the potential damage the exposed wires could have had on her children. She was worried about what could have happened if this had not been picked up, and she felt let down by the landlord.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2023. The landlord:
   1. said the ASHP should always have a waterproof cover and it was not okay that it was missed twice.
   2. said there was no good reason why the cover was missed both times and could only put it down to human error but that it was not done deliberately.
   3. said the engineers did not meet the performance standards or follow the right steps.
   4. said it has taken action to stop this mistake from happening again, including training and individual performance reviews with the engineers responsible.
   5. confirmed that there had been no further reports of this mistake since it had taken these actions.
   6. said the engineer who checked the heating system apologised for his mistake.
   7. offered to help pay for new flooring in the kitchen. It offered £15 for each square meter of usable flooring.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 February 2023.
10. The resident remained unhappy that the landlord did not explain why the panel was missed twice or explained what could have happened if the third engineer had not picked up the missing cover. She felt that training and feedback did not make up for what had happened. The resident also said she had not asked for money for the kitchen flooring as part of the complaint and was insulted as the flooring was new and fitted by a professional.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has confirmed that the issue regarding compensation for the kitchen flooring did not form part of the complaint and has not gone through the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is not within the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of a of a missing waterproof cover on a heat pump.

12. The landlord confirmed that the ASHP should always be installed with a waterproof cover fitted. It admitted this was missed during the installation and missed it for a second time during a safety inspection. It acknowledged that this was not acceptable and that if fell below its expected standards. The landlord said this was down to human error.
13. The landlord took action to prevent this mistake from happening again and explained the actions it had taken to the resident. This included an internal review of the errors, training, and performance management. The landlord confirmed that following the actions, the mistake had not been repeated.
14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s explanation for why the mistakes occurred was appropriate. It identified what it had done wrong, what it should have done and how it intended to put things right and it shared this with the resident as part of its complaint handling. This is the approach the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take to improve the service it provides to its residents.
15. The missing waterproof cover was installed on 21 December 2022, 5 weeks after the cover was noted as missing. This left the resident living with a genuine worry and concern that the exposed wires could be a danger to her and her young children. In addition, she was concerned that there was a longer period since the unit was installed and the cover missing which had created a potential danger that she was not aware of. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord failed to show that it considered this part of her complaint in its decision-making.
16. The resident was upset that the landlord left her and her children in a potentially dangerous situation, which is the basis of her complaint. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have explained to the resident what the potential danger may or may not have been during the time the cover was not fitted. Not all exposed wires are dangerous, and this could have been explained better by the landlord and could have offered the reassurance the resident clearly needed to allow her and her children to feel safe in their home. It also failed to say if the lack of a waterproof cover would have affected the operation of the unit, this was a failure by the landlord.
17. The Ombudsman is unable to make findings about what would, or could have happened in a theoretical situation, as our investigations are based on evidence and not on predictions. In this case, the Ombudsman would not be able to make a finding on what could have happened if the third engineer had not identified the missing cover.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of a missing back panel on a heat pump.

Orders

19. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, to within 28 days of the date of this decision:
    1. Pay the resident £250 in compensation for the service failures identified within this report.
    2. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears, if any.
    3. The landlord must provide evidence to this service of the compensation which has been paid.