Shian Housing Association Limited (202310376)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310376

Shian Housing Association Limited

22 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair her central heating system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a three-bedroom house, under an assured tenancy which began on 19 February 1996. The resident runs a childminding business from her home, and also acts as sole carer to her sister who requires dialysis treatment.
The resident reported problems with a leaking radiator on 10 October 2022, and the landlord’s contractor replaced a thermostatic radiator valve on 4 November 2022. The resident reported no heating or hot water to the landlord on 17 December 2022, due to a frozen condenser pipe, which was resolved by the landlord’s contractor on the same day. The parties accept that the landlord’s contractor restored the central heating after each of these reports.
On 16 January 2023, the resident reported that some of her radiators were not working. The landlord’s contractor identified that a new radiator was required, and the system needed to be power flushed. On 11 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor determined that a valve in the system would need to be replaced. The repair to the valve took place on 17 February 2023, when the contractor also recommended that the boiler should be replaced.
On 20 February 2023, the resident made a formal complaint about several missed appointments and late attendances by the landlord’s contractor, and about the length of time it was taking to complete the central heating repairs. She requested details of the repairs history and her calls to the landlord regarding water and heating since October 2022, along with her details of when the boiler was installed and its service history. She also requested a plan for repair of the central heating and hot water.
A new boiler was fitted at the property on 6 and 7 March 2023. The resident reported to the landlord, that following the works it had undertaken, the boiler still did not work. The contractor attended on 8 March 2023 and noted that the boiler had been installed incorrectly.
The landlord issued its “pre-decision” stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 10 March 2023, which did not uphold the resident’s complaint, but acknowledged the resident’s concerns about missed appointments. Further work was carried out on 11 and 13 March 2023 to correct and complete the boiler installation.
The resident responded to the landlord’s “pre-decision” stage 1 response on 20 March 2023 with a detailed record of scheduled, missed, and late attendances at the property by the contractor. On 23 March 2023, the resident raised further concerns about whether the gas safety certificate, issued by the landlord’s contractor on 7 March 2023, was valid.
The stage 1 “decision” response was issued by the landlord on 6 April 2023. In response to each of the resident’s points in her complaint and subsequent correspondence, the landlord:
1. acknowledged partial service failure by its contractor in terms of missed and delayed appointments for repair.
2. stated that the contractor did not delay the process to replace boiler.
3. confirmed it did not automatically record phone calls so could not provide the information requested by the resident, but that in its view, this was not a service failure.
4. confirmed that the resident’s previous boiler was installed in 2014, and service history was only available from 2018 onwards.
5. confirmed that its contractor had now installed a new boiler and would be attending on 12 April 2023 to flush out one of the radiators.
6. noted that its consultant had carried out an independent post-installation inspection on 3 April 2023 to assess the work and ensure it was carried out in line with requirements.
7. confirmed that the gas safety certificate was not, in its view, illegal and that it had requested confirmation of this from both its contractor and its consultant.
8. enclosed a letter of apology from its contractor and noted the contractor’s offer of compensation of £65.
9. confirmed that the resident would be entitled to compensation from the landlord for loss of heating and hot water during winter months in the sum of £136.94.
10. confirmed it had raised concerns with its contractor who would improve communication with residents to minimise missed/delayed appointments.
Further works were carried out at the property on 12 April 2023 to flush the system and fit a radiator, and the contractor identified that a further radiator would need to be replaced. Works to reroute the flue to the new boiler and replace a radiator took place in late April 2023.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 21 April 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the level of compensation offered. She queried again the lack of call records and the validity of the gas safety certificate, and wanted a further gas safety check to be carried out.
The landlord provided a “pre-decision” Stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2023 and a subsequent stage 2 “decision” response on 25 May 2023. In its final response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed that there was partial service failure in terms of missed appointments and delays but that once the contractor identified that a new boiler was needed, the boiler replacement process was not delayed.
2. Confirmed that the landlord did not make audio recordings of calls and therefore would not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
3. Provided an explanation that the boiler installation and gas safety records were only required to be kept for 2 years. Noted that the landlord had kept and provided them to the resident for the previous 5 years.
4. Confirmed outstanding works had been completed to the central heating and that the final works had taken place on 28 April 2023.
5. Confirmed the landlord’s view that, in spite of the inaccuracy identified, the gas safety certificate was valid, so there would be no further gas safety check.
6. Asked for the resident’s utility bills for January, February and March of 2021, 2022, and 2023, to allow it to compare usage rather than cost in order to compensate the resident.
7. Stated that its contractor had offered an ex–gratia payment of £65, and that in addition, the landlord was offering £136.94, in line with its compensation policy, for disruption to heating and hot water during the repairs.
8. Confirmed that it would also be offering the resident the sum of £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and the level of compensation offered and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 August 2023.The resident confirmed that she was seeking additional compensation for her increased gas and electricity bills while the boiler was not working efficiently, and compensation to reflect loss of earnings, and inconvenience and disruption caused by the missed appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has, as part of her complaint, questioned the validity of the gas safety certificate issued by the landlord dated 7 March 2023. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether a gas check has been carried out correctly, or if a landlord has been negligent in respect of this, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit and expertise. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and behaved reasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint about this issue, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair her central heating system

The resident complained that there were delays in the landlord completing the repairs to her central heating system.
Under the terms of the occupancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for space and water heating at the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy classified restoring heating and hot water as an urgent repair, with a target response time of 5 days. The policy stated that the landlord aimed to complete repairs for a total or partial heating failure within 24 hours if they occurred between 31 October to 1 May. Radiator valve repairs had a target completion time of 20 working days; repairs to a back boiler had a target completion time of 5 working days; and routine repairs had a target completion time of 20 working days.
In this case, the resident reported that some of her radiators were not working to both the landlord and the landlord’s contractor on 16 January 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 January 2023 and recorded that the system needed a power flush and that one of the radiators needed to be replaced because the bleed valve was broken. In line with the landlord’s 20 working day target for routine repairs, the target date for replacement of the radiator would have been 17 February 2023. The radiator was not replaced until 12 April 2023, which was 8 weeks after the 20 working day target. There is no reason given for this delay within the records provided, and the resident was not informed of the reason for this delay. This was inappropriate.
With regard to the boiler, the resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2023 because the water temperature had become too hot after the contractor’s visit on 20 January, and the radiators were still not functioning properly. The landlord sent a message to the resident on 23 January 2023 asking her to book an appointment with the contractor to test the efficiency of the boiler.
After a missed appointment on 26 January 2023, the contractor attended on 11 February 2023 and noted again that a power flush was needed and that a valve in the boiler needed to be replaced. The boiler valve was replaced on 17 February 2023. At this appointment, the engineer noted that the main exchanger in the boiler was making a rattling noise and recommended replacement of the boiler. The contractor also delivered a fan heater to the resident on this date.
After the resident’s complaint on 20 February 2023, the landlord contacted the contractor and its consultant by email to ask them to investigate the matter. The consultant emailed the contractor asking for a quote for a replacement boiler on 21 February 2023, and a pre installation inspection was carried out by the contractor on 24 February 2023. Costs were approved on 2 March 2023 and the boiler was replaced by the contractor on 6 and 7 March 2023.
The resident reported that the boiler would not start up after the contractor left the property on 7 March, and on 8 March 2023 the contractor attended to investigate. The contractor identified that the flow and return pipes on the boiler had been installed incorrectly, and further work was needed to rectify this. After appointments on 11 March and 13 March, the boiler was installed and functioning, with further work to the flue carried out on 28 April 2023.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been delays to the contractor completing the repairs, but stated that the boiler replacement process had not been delayed.
The Ombudsman acknowledges it can take several visits for a contractor to ascertain what the most appropriate solution might be for a repair issue, and that a landlord may choose to attempt to repair a boiler before opting to replace it. In this case, there was an initial delay between the resident reporting problems with the boiler on 23 January 2023 and the landlord inspecting the boiler and identifying a need for repair on 11 February 2023. The delay was due to a missed appointment by the contractor and meant that the landlord’s initial response time exceeded its target of attending within 5 working days.
On 17 February 2023, the contractor replaced a valve but also recommended installation of a new boiler. On that date, the contractor offered electric fan heaters to the resident to use while she waited for the boiler to be replaced, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman notes that, once the landlord’s contractor identified that a new boiler was required on 17 February 2023, the contractor acted to commence the landlord’s boiler replacement process. The boiler was installed on 6 and 7 March 2023, and was functioning by 13 March 2023. This was 22 working days after the decision to replace the boiler was made, which is 2 days over the 20 working day target for routine repairs. Arrangements for inspecting the existing boiler, sourcing and obtaining a replacement, and installing the new boiler all took place within this period. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the replacement process was handled appropriately, and that once the contractor identified the need for replacement, the landlord and contractor acted without significant delay.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s contractor missing, being late for, or cancelling a number of appointments to carry out the central heating repairs.
The occupancy agreement specified that the resident had an obligation to allow the landlord access to the property to carry out inspections and repairs. The agreement also stated that the landlord would ordinarily give 24 hours’ notice. This obligation was repeated in the landlord’s repair policy, where it also stated that usually the resident should be given 24 hours’ notice when access was required.
The landlord’s repairs policy stated that residents would be offered either morning or afternoon appointment windows. The policy also stated that if a staff member was unable to get to a resident’s home at the agreed time, the landlord would let the resident know. The landlord would also try to contact a resident if its contractor told the landlord it would be late or unable to attend.
The Ombudsman has relied on a summary of the records of visits to the property by the contractor and outgoing text messages and emails from the landlord, in order to assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs. These have been considered alongside the resident’s account of events, provided in her correspondence to the landlord.
It is noted that the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with its records of calls or reports made by the resident in this case. In the absence of these records, the Ombudsman has relied on the resident’s account of what was reported on each occasion.
The Ombudsman has inferred from the lack of call records provided by the landlord, that the overall record keeping in this case was poor. This is likely to have made it more difficult for the landlord and its contractor to monitor the repairs at the resident’s property and may have contributed to delays. It is also likely to have contributed to the frequency of missed and late appointments, and poor communication between the resident, landlord, and contractor in this case.
From the records available, it appears that between 10 October 2022 when a problem with the heating was first reported by the resident, and 25 May 2023 when the “decision” stage 2 complaint response was issued, at least twenty-one appointments were arranged for the contractor to attend at the resident’s property. From the correspondence provided, it appears that at least 7 of those pre-arranged appointments were missed, because the contractor did not attend, cancelled the appointment at short notice, or the contractor attended late, which meant that the appointments had to be rearranged because the resident had to leave the property. There were also several appointments where the landlord’s contractor attended at the property early or late, and the resident was able to return to the property to accommodate the appointment.
The resident complained that communication with her about delays and missed appointments was poor, and that she had contacted the landlord and the contractor on many occasions to find out the location of the contractor and whether they would be attending planned appointments.
Whilst it is acknowledged that residents should expect to have to accommodate some appointments, it is reasonable to assume that this high frequency of appointments, including those that were missed, early, late, and rearranged, would be disruptive to the resident.
The impact of this number of appointments would have been increased because the resident is a self-employed childminder and had significant caring responsibilities for her sister. If the contractor was scheduled to attend, the resident reported that she closed her business for the day, as she was unable to care for young children at the property when engineers were carrying out repairs to the central heating. She also rearranged the times she would be present to provide care and assistance for her sister’s dialysis. The resident stated in her complaint correspondence that she made her circumstances clear to the landlord and the landlord’s contractor in the telephone calls she made to book appointments. As noted above, the landlord’s records of what was discussed on these occasions have not been provided.
The landlord contacted its contractor to investigate the resident’s complaint and in its “decision” stage 1 response, the landlord partially upheld her complaint about the missed appointments. The landlord’s contractor provided an apology and an offer of £65 which was in addition to the compensation for loss of heating and hot water awarded by the landlord. The landlord failed to offer any additional compensation for inconvenience due to delays and missed appointments at the “pre-decision” stage 1, “decision” stage 1, or “pre-decision” stage 2 of the complaints process. However, it went on to offer £100 in respect of distress and inconvenience at the “decision” stage 2.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident sought additional compensation for taking time off due to non-attendance of operatives. However, the landlord advised that it did not compensate tenants for taking annual leave or time off work for appointments.
It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that its compensation policy did not allow for compensation for loss of earnings. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for distress and inconvenience in addition to the sum offered by the contractor.
In addition to the delays and missed appointments, on 23 March 2023, the resident raised her concerns about the gas safety certificate issued when her boiler was installed on 6 and 7 March 2023.
Whilst, as noted above, it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to comment on the validity of the certificate itself, it appears that the landlord dealt appropriately with this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord investigated the matter by requesting further information from its contractor and consultant about the requirements for a valid certificate and provided the resident with this information in its Stage 1 “decision” response. The landlord also appropriately apologised for the error the resident had identified, and explained why this was not, in its view, an error which would make the certificate invalid.
It is understandable that the resident requires further reassurance on this issue, in light of the fact that the boiler was not operational at the time the certificate was issued. A recommendation is therefore set out below that the landlord provides the resident (if it has not already done so since 7 March 2023) with an updated gas safety certificate which is correctly dated and representative of the state of the boiler at the time of issue.
In light of the delay in dealing with the repairs outlined above, and in consideration of the number of missed and late appointments, and poor record keeping and communication in this case, a determination of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the central heating repairs has been made.
In reviewing the redress offered by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s assessment of the compensation for loss of heating and hot water under its policy was appropriate. The landlord offered compensation of £136.94 for loss of hot water and heating. This was calculated using the landlord’s compensation policy, which specified that the resident was entitled to a 10% rent refund for the days when she experienced a loss of heating and a 10% rent refund for the days when she experienced a loss of hot water, with payments starting 7 days after the loss was first notified to the landlord, and ending when the boiler installation was complete. It was appropriate for the landlord to make this offer, and it is included in the order below.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a sum in recognition of her distress and inconvenience, in addition to the goodwill payment offered by the contractor.
However, the Ombudsman considers that in light of the level of inconvenience caused to the resident by the missed appointments and delays, and the effort needed by the resident to call the landlord and its contractor repeatedly to rearrange missed appointments, the sum of £100 offered for distress and inconvenience was inadequate. An order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 for her time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience has therefore been included below.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord did not award compensation, in line with its compensation policy, of £10 per week for its failure to meet the repair time target for the radiator repairs. An order to include a payment of £50 for this element of compensation is outlined below. This is calculated at £10 per week up to the maximum of £50 under the policy.
The landlord also failed to apply the section of its compensation policy which stated that the resident could claim compensation of £10 for each missed appointment. An order has been set out below for the landlord to pay the resident the sum of £70, for 7 missed appointments, at a rate of £10 per appointment.
A further order is set out below for the landlord to seek confirmation from its contractor that it has paid the resident the sum of £65 offered in its letter of 30 March 2023.
It is noted that the landlord also offered to review the resident’s utility bills from 2022 and 2023 to determine whether the resident had paid higher costs as a result of the need to use electric heaters whilst waiting for repairs, and also due to increased gas consumption when the resident was waiting for the boiler to be replaced, and it was functioning inefficiently. This was appropriate, and an order to repeat this offer is set out below.
The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 24 June 2023 regarding a leak from one of the radiators replaced by the contractor in April 2023. The records show that the landlord responded to the resident to indicate that it would treat this matter as a new complaint. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to respond to this new complaint in line with its complaints procedure, and if it has not already responded, it should do so without delay. The Ombudsman has also set out a recommendation below that the landlord provides the resident with the information necessary to claim for any damage caused by the leak under its insurance policy.
In consideration of the instances of poor record keeping which have been identified in this case, a further recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022, landlords were required to:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of the escalation request.
The Code also specified that a complaints procedure should comprise of 2 stages, and that a process with more than 3 stages was not acceptable under any circumstances.
The landlord’s complaints procedure was compliant with the provisions of the Code relating to response times. However, it was not compliant with the provisions of the Code relating to the number of stages. This is because the landlord’s procedure comprised of 4 stages, with an additional “pre-decision” stage at both stage 1 and stage 2. This had the effect of requiring additional time and effort from the resident at each stage to progress her complaint.
The resident raised her complaint on 20 February 2023, so the landlord had until 27 February 2023 to acknowledge it. The landlord then had until 6 March 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 27 February 2023. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2023 chasing a response to her complaint and that the landlord apologised for the delay and issued its “pre decision” stage 1 response on 10 March 2023, 18 days after the complaint was raised. The resident responded to the “pre-decision” stage 1 on the 20 March outlining a detailed history of appointments and missed or late attendances by the contractor.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident and stated it was seeking the contractor’s response on the issues raised and would come back to her when it had received this. It subsequently advised the resident on 31 March 2023 that she would receive the “decision” stage 1 response by no later than 3 April 2023. Despite this, the landlord’s “decision” stage 1 response was issued on 6 April 2023, some 34 days after the complaint was raised.
Whilst the landlord appropriately informed the resident about potential delays in its acknowledgement and apologised in the “pre-decision” stage 1 response for the delay, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension of time to respond with the resident. Nor did it update the resident when the deadline passed. On that basis, the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. This meant that additional effort was required from the resident to contact the landlord to check on the progress of the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 April 2023 to confirm that she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She confirmed her dissatisfaction with the handling of the repairs and missed appointments and told the landlord that she thought that the compensation it had offered was inadequate.
A “pre-decision” stage 2 response was issued on 17 May 2023, 16 working days after the request for escalation. A final “decision” stage 2 response was issued on 25 May 2023, 22 working days after the escalation request.
The Ombudsman considers that overall, the impact of the delays in complaint handling in this case were limited, and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise at stage 1. However, additional effort was required from the resident to escalate the complaint at each stage, due to the landlord having a complaint process which was not compliant with the Complaint Handling Code. This was not appropriate and will have resulted in unnecessary time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In her initial complaint, the Ombudsman notes that the resident specifically requested details of the calls she had made to the landlord since October 2022. She stated that there had been occasions where she had contacted the landlord to request information about the repairs, but the landlord had failed to call her back. The landlord responded at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process by confirming that they did not have audio recordings of the resident’s calls.
It is not clear to the Ombudsman whether the resident was in fact requesting copies of audio recordings, or whether instead she was asking for any of the landlord’s records of the calls she had made. The landlord should have confirmed this with the resident when she told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response on this issue. The landlord’s response at stage 2, which simply repeated the stage 1 response, that the landlord did not make audio recordings, was not appropriate. The response also failed to address the resident’s substantive complaint about the landlord’s failure to call her back when it had said it would do so.
In consideration of the issues outlined above, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Having carefully considered the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £100. This appropriately recognises the unnecessary time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that since the conclusion of this complaint, an updated complaints procedure has been published on the landlord’s website. The landlord’s updated complaints procedure now has 2 stages, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair her central heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this investigation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £606.94 in compensation, this is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offers of compensation. The compensation has been calculated as follows:
1. £236.94 previously offered by the landlord at stage 2 of its complaint process for loss of heating and hot water and distress and inconvenience
2. An additional £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the central heating repairs
3. £50 for the delays in completing the radiator repair
4. £70 for missed appointments
5. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must request evidence from the resident of her increased energy use by providing copy bills for January, February, and March 2022 and January, February, and March 2023. If increased use is identified, the landlord should repeat its offer to compensate the resident for any increased use of gas and electricity during the period from January 2023 to March 2023.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must request confirmation from its contractor that it has honoured its offer to pay the resident the sum of £65, as offered in its letter dated 30 March 2023.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report, contact the resident to provide her with details to enable her to submit a liability claim to it, or its insurers for the damage that she reported experiencing to her flooring and property from the leaking radiator reported on 14 June 2023.
The landlord should (if it has not already done so since 7 March 2023) provide the resident with an updated gas safety certificate which is correctly dated and representative of the state of the boiler at the time of issue.
The landlord should review the record-keeping issues highlighted in this report, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, with a view to ensuring repair records accurately reflect repair reports from residents and that recommended repairs are captured promptly and actioned accordingly. Identified improvements should be cascaded to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.