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

Saxon Weald (202323564)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323564

Saxon Weald

26 June 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the replacement of communal boilers.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership leasehold agreement with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat within a large block. On 9 September 2022 the resident reported heating and hot water loss. The landlord attended the property several times over the next few weeks and completed a series of works on the communal boiler which temporarily restored the resident’s heating and hot water. The boiler failed again in late September 2022.
  2. This pattern recurred over the following year and a half wherein the boilers would fail and the landlord would attend and complete a temporary repair. In November 2022 the landlord installed temporary boilers. On 25 September 2023 the resident complained that the landlord should have fully replaced the boilers by this stage, and that its projected January 2024 start date for the works was unacceptable.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 October 2023. It explained that it could not expediate the boiler replacement as it needed to formally consult with leaseholders about the projected costs of the works. On 16 October 2023 the resident brought her complaint to us. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 the following day. She reiterated that she considered the landlord had delayed unreasonably in progressing a full boiler replacement, and that as a result her and her husband had regularly had to make use of electric heaters during the previous winter. She also explained that the temporary boilers were insufficient for “a number of days”.
  4. On 13 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it had decided not to carry out consultations with leaseholders about the new boiler as this would cause further delay. It explained it was drafting a contract for the works and that these would commence on 22 January 2024. It acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident suitably updated about the works and delayed in providing a stage 2 response. It offered her £150 compensation as redress.
  5. The resident was unhappy with this response as she considered the landlord should have replaced the boiler during the summer. On 2 April 2024 the landlord finished its installation of the new boiler.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We do not typically investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months of their arising. We have seen repairs records from 2019 onwards, and the resident has complained that issues with the communal boilers were ongoing for a number of years. However, the resident first complained in September 2023. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s actions from September 2022 up until its final response. We will also consider its actions following this response insofar as they relate to commitments it made as part of this.

How the landlord handled the replacement of communal boilers.

  1. The resident’s shared ownership lease agreement explains that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the communal boilers.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy explains that it does not cover ““larger repairs which require significant investigation, planning, or organization.”
  3. The replacement of the boilers was clearly a repair which required significant investment, planning, and organisation. For instance, the records indicate it cost the landlord over £200,000. Therefore, it is not covered by the timescales set out in the responsive repairs policy.
  4. However, the landlord was still obligated to:
    1. Take reasonable and prompt action to progress works to repair or replace the boilers.
    2. Keep the resident updated on the progress of works.
  5. The resident reported issues with the communal boilers on 9 September 2022, and the landlord replaced these 17 months later on 2 April 2024. During this period the landlord attended the block to complete temporary repairs on the communal boilers, and then the temporary supplementary boilers it installed in November 2022, on over 40 occasions[FP1]. Given these frequent breakdowns, the landlord acted reasonably by deciding to replace the system in its entirety.
  6. However, the resident’s complaint is that the landlord delayed unreasonably in making this decision, and then delayed further in progressing the replacement.
  7. We cannot see any evidence in the records to indicate when the landlord made the decision to replace the system. The first reference to this is in a letter the resident sent to the landlord in September 2023 expressing her frustration having just been advised the replacement would commence in January 2024. The landlord should have kept a clear audit trail on its decision making, but failed to do so here.
  8. Considering that the landlord had decided to install temporary boilers in November 2022, we would expect to see evidence that it had at least began considering a permanent solution by this stage. The lack of related evidence does not persuade us that the landlord made this decision within a reasonable time frame.
  9. There is also no evidence within the records of any communication between the landlord and the contractor it procured for the boiler replacement. Once it made the decision to replace the boilers, whenever this was, we would expect to see evidence showing how it went about organising and progressing the works. It took 17 months to do so following the resident’s report of heating and hot water loss in September 2022. In the absence of any evidence showing the actions it took to progress things during this period, the Ombudsman considers this delay was unreasonable.
  10. We can see the landlord explained to the resident in its stage 1 and 2 responses that the works would commence in January 2024. However, following its stage 2 response, we can see no evidence of any further updates. The works were not completed until 2 April 2024, and there is no evidence to show if they commenced in January 2024 as promised. In any case, the landlord should have kept the resident updated about the progress of these works, and we consider its failure to do so likely caused her some distress. We also note the landlord acknowledged this omission in its stage 2 response.
  11. Ultimately, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in replacing the boilers, and that it failed to keep the resident suitably updated. We also note the landlord acknowledged a delay in its contract procurement process in recent emails to the Ombudsman. We consider the delay likely caused the resident some distress and inconvenience, which was then compounded by its poor communication. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays her compensation to put this right.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay sums of up to £750 when its own failures have caused “major impacts”. It defines these impacts as when there is a serious failure in service standards. It could be linked to the severity of an event, or a persistent failure over a protracted time, or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve the complaint. The resident will also have suffered a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress.
  13. In calculating the correct sum of compensation, we have considered the length of the delay in replacing the boilers. We have considered the degree of inconvenience the resident suffered given the many times she was forced to report loss of heating and hot water and chase the replacement.
  14. However, we have balanced[FP2] this with the landlord’s positive action in installing temporary boilers in November 2022 which went some way to mitigate the impact of the delay. We have considered that the landlord decided to waive the consultation period to expediate things, and that this decision significantly reduced the sum that the resident was obligated to contribute towards the works.
  15. We have also considered that the impact of the landlord’s omissions was mostly limited to distress and inconvenience, given the resident acknowledged in her stage 2 escalation request in October 2023 that she had only been without heating and hot water for “a few days” since September 2022.
  16. With all this in mind, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. The landlord has already offered the resident £75 for the delay in replacing the boilers, and our order is inclusive of this sum.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and address them within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 escalations within 5 working days and address them within 20 working days. When it is unable to meet these timescales, it will contact complainants and provide updated timescales.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within its timescales. It then exceeded its stage 2 timescales by 20 working days. However, it updated the resident during this period of delay and explained the reasons for it on 2 occasions. It has also offered the resident £75 compensation. Given it took steps to mitigate the impact of the delay, we consider this offer of compensation was sufficient to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the replacement of communal boilers.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 compensation for its omissions in how it handled the replacement of the communal boilers.
  2. If it has already paid the £75 it offered at stage 2 as redress for these omissions, it is to evidence this and subtract it from the outstanding sum.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £75 sum it offered for its delay in responding at stage 2 if it has not already paid this.

[FP1]Were these reported by the R or does this include others- looks like there is more than one boiler

[FP2]As well as the decision to waive the consultation period?