Swindon Borough Council (202302293)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202302293
Swindon Borough Council
21 February 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:
- Response to the resident’s concerns that the central heating system was defective, which had caused high bills.
- Complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has a weekly tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom bungalow. She has lived there since 1997. The resident is 77 years old and suffers with chronic illnesses. She told us that she has been housebound for over 3 years. The landlord does not have these vulnerabilities recorded on its systems.
- The resident reported on 6 December 2022 that the radiators weren’t heating properly. A contractor attended on 16 December 2022 and found that the living room radiators had cold areas at the bottom.
- Following this, the landlord tested the heating and hot water system. It was found to be working correctly. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord arranged for an independent central heating survey. This found that the heating system was working but recommended some minor works. These were done on 17 April 2023.
- The resident made a complaint on 19 April 2023 and said works had been cancelled and then changes had been made to the heating system against her wishes. This had caused her to owe over £500 on her gas bill.
- The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 May 2023 and outlined the works it had done. It said that these were in line with building regulations. It acknowledged that it had attended on 3 consecutive days in April 2023. Two of these had been due to a lack of heating and hot water. These had been resolved each time but it noted it had not fixed the issue during the first visit. It said there was no evidence of an issue with the heating system which had caused a high bill. It advised that the resident could organise for a company to carry out a survey. It would pay for this and carry out any required work.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 2 July 2023 and reiterated her concerns. She said she had been admitted to hospital 3 times due to stress caused by the landlord.
- The landlord responded at stage 2 on 10 July 2023 and said that surveys had found the heating system to be working. Despite the system working, it said it would review the gas usage if she provided statements. It acknowledged the cancelled appointments, but said it had responded in line with its repairs timeframes. It had offered compensation amounting to a week’s rent (£107.42) as a goodwill gesture.
- Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, in November 2023 the resident requested another independent inspection. The landlord arranged this and no faults were found. This did find that TVRs had been turned down and a radiator cover was blocking the heat. The resident said that the contractors were “sarcastic and hostile”.
- The resident told us that the landlord had done bathroom renovations around October 2024. A site foreman had fixed the issue with the radiator within minutes. She confirmed that the radiators now worked correctly.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident advised that the situation has impacted on her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts are able to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the cause of any illness or injury. Any disputes over this can be examined in court. We can’t consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health. However we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced if we identify a failing by the landlord.
- The resident raised concerns about the behaviour of contractors during the inspection in December 2023. As this was after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, this is not something we can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the chance to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns as part of its internal complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and raise a separate complaint to have this investigated. If she raises a complaint and is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response when it has finished investigating, she can escalate the matter to us.
- The resident stated that there have been issues with the radiators since the heating system was replaced in 2017. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and staff involved may have left the organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period leading up to the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s subsequent actions. Any reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context.
Response to the resident’s concerns that the central heating system was defective, which had caused high bills
- The resident believes that faults with the heating system and the actions of contractors have caused high gas bills. She has requested that the landlord pay for this increased cost. It is not for us to determine what different things may have led to a gas bill being the amount it was. We are not experts in energy usage.. We can, however, look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about this and any action it took.
- The landlord has acknowledged that it had cancelled appointments in December 2022, which had been raised to inspect the radiators. It did not clarify how many it had cancelled or the reasons for this. It also acknowledged that it did not have appointments available on 6 December 2022 as it had prioritised responding to urgent issues.
- The landlord’s record keeping for this period was confusing. A contractor had identified cold parts of the living room radiators on 16 December 2022. After this, the landlord marked as the job as complete on 5 January 2023, but also that this work had been “abandoned”. It is therefore not clear if any repair was carried out and if not, what the reasons were for this.
- The landlord said that it had responded to the resident’s concern in line with its repairs timeframes. The tenants handbook sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities as follows:
- For an emergency repair it will attend within 2 hours to make safe. It will complete the repair the next working day. Loss of heating or hot water is considered to be an urgent repair and not an emergency, unless a resident is over 90 or suffering from a terminal illness.
- For urgent repairs, it will complete these the next working day.
- For non-urgent repairs, it will complete these within 40 working days.
- In this instance, the landlord appropriately classed the resident’s concerns about the radiators being partly cold, as a non-urgent repair. The appointment being arranged for 16 December 2022 was 10 days after the resident’s report. This was within its 40 working days response timeframe. It should, however, have been able to evidence the action it had taken during this appointment.
- The heating and hot water system was tested on 9 February 2023 and was found to be operating correctly. Despite this finding, the landlord went beyond its requirement to investigate and arranged for a second inspection by an independent contractor. This demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s ongoing concerns seriously and that it was committed to make sure it had fully investigated. The independent contractor also said that the heating system was working correctly. It did, however, recommend some works which could help improve performance.
- The evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the findings of the independent report and carried out the recommended works on 17 April 2023.
- The resident said she was not happy with these works within her complaint on 19 April 2023. She said as follows:
- The landlord had not attended in December 2022 and had cancelled the job without telling her. She wouldn’t be accepting any more repairs as these had not fixed the issues. She outlined her health conditions and that these were worsened by stress and cold.
- The “dead leg” pipe had been found in 2017 but no action had been taken. Since then the hot water had repeatedly gone cold. This had caused her to waste water and heat. It had taken until 17 April 2023 to resolve this issue.
- After the work on 17 April 2023, there had been no water and a leak from a pipe in the loft. She questioned if the contractor who had carried out the works had been independent.
- The landlord had told the contractor to remove the thermostatic radiator valve (TVR) from the living room radiator against her wishes. The radiator was too large and she needed to be able to regulate it.
- Without her agreement, the contractor had set a radiator to run continuously. They had also turned some radiators down.
- She owed £581.95 on her gas bill. The landlord had caused this as the thermostat wouldn’t go off due to the radiator only half heating. The actions of the contractors in turning her thermostat up and running hot water had increased her bill.
- She requested that the landlord pay £581.95 for her energy bill and for it to put a TVR back on the living room radiator.
- It is not clear if the contractor who carried out the works On 17 April 2023 was from the independent gas company or was a contractor of the landlord. However, it is clear that the findings which prompted the works had been determined by an independent company. Following that, it was reasonable for the landlord to use a contractor of its choice to carry out the recommendations of the independent company.
- The resident told the landlord on 3 May 2023 that she had been unable to put the heating on due to owing money for gas. Although the landlord told us that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, she had made these clear in her correspondence. Despite being aware of the significant number of health issues the resident had, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the impact of these on the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord considered if it could assist financially or signpost her to external organisations who may be able to help. This was a missed opportunity to support the resident in light of the situation she had described.
- The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 May 2023 and said as follows:
- There had been a high demand on emergency calls on 6 December 2023 (it appears this should have said ‘2022’). It had therefore prioritised residents with a total loss of heating and hot water.
- The heating and hot water system had been tested and was found to be operating and all radiators were heating. It had replaced the room thermostat. The resident had refused to let it replace the TRV as advised. The contractor switched the boiler from auto and had set the timer at the resident’s request.
- It had ensured the loft insulation was adequate (19 April 2023) and had inspected the cavity wall insulation (9 May 2023). No works were needed.
- As the resident had been unhappy with the heating works, it had arranged for an independent survey. It had completed the recommended works on 17 April 2023.
- Although against the resident’s wishes, it had changed the TVR on the lounge radiator to a manual valve. This was to make sure that the radiator and thermostat did not clash, in-line with building regulations.
- As soon as the issue with the “dead leg” was identified, it had arranged for this to be removed. This should have been removed in 2017 but it would not have affected the hot water.
- Following the works, it had attended as follows:
- 18 April 2023 – report of no heating or hot water. It attended out of hours. The system was repressurised and left working.
- 19 April 2023 – report of a leak. It had replaced 2 automatic air vents on the heating pipes in the loft. The system was left working.
- 20 April 2023 – report of no heating or hot water. It replaced a leaking automatic air valve inside the boiler and recharged a part inside the boiler. The system was left working.
- It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused between 18 and 20 April 2023. Its aim was to try to repair first time. This had not happened.
- There was no evidence that there was a fault with the boiler or heating system which had caused an increased bill. As such, it could not reimburse the resident. If the resident wanted this investigated further, it would need copies of her gas bills from the last 18 months.
- It had spoken to the supervisors and found they had been professional and had expressed empathy. It had offered a joint visit with the gas repairs servicing manager and senior housing officer but the resident had declined.
- It concluded that the multiple visits between 18 and 20 April 2023 and the lack of appointment on 6 December 2022 were failures. It apologised and offered a week’s rent (£107.42) as a goodwill gesture. It apologised if the resident’s health had been affected.
- The resident could organise for a gas safe registered company of her choice to carry out a survey. It would pay for this and would carry out any suggested works.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and outlined the steps it had taken to inspect and carry out works. Its investigation of the loft and cavity wall insulation was appropriate. This demonstrated that the landlord had taken a holistic approach to try to understand why the resident felt the heating was not working properly.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the findings of the specialist contractors, that the heating system was working correctly. It noted the resident’s concerns about her energy bills and said it would review this if she provided previous bills. This was reasonable as a way for it to understand the energy usage. This was also in line with its compensation policy. This says that in cases where a resident believed a failure has caused increased bills, evidence to support this will be needed.
- The landlord’s offer to pay for a company of the resident’s choosing to carry out a third survey and complete any recommended works was beyond what it was required to offer. This demonstrated a proactive and resolution focused approach, given that two recent surveys had identified no issues.
- The landlord appropriately acknowledged that following works to the heating system in April 2023, the resident had experienced losses of heating and hot water and a leak. It is not clear if these were linked to the works, however, the landlord responded appropriately to each report and completed works the same day. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience and distress caused by the need for repairs.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 2 July 2023 and said as follows:
- The landlord had not resolved the central heating faults since 2017. The whole system should be replaced.
- She had been admitted to hospital 3 times due to stress caused by the landlord.
- Despite reporting the issues 3 times from 6 December 2022 and outlining her health issues, the landlord had cancelled the repair without telling her.
- The independent company hadn’t been independent as they could only do works instructed by the landlord.
- Contractors had run the heating for hours at 30 degrees. This had caused a high gas bill. Against her wishes, the contractor had set the heating to continuous. She had broken down in tears but contractors had pressured her despite her pleading with them to leave.
- As the living room radiators were only half heating, this caused the thermostat to run almost all the time. This caused a high gas bill. She had not been able to put the heating on due to owing money for her bill.
- On 10 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and said as follows:
- The heating system was operating as per its design and was fit for purpose. There was no evidence to suggest that there was a fault which had caused an increase in gas consumption .
- It could have done better in respect of cancelled appointments. However, it had responded in line with its repairs timeframes. It had offered a week’s rent (£107.42) as a goodwill gesture.
- It reiterated that the resident could organise for a company to carry out a survey. It would pay for this and carry out any required work.
- It would review the gas usage if she provided statements showing usage.
- Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident asked the landlord to arrange another independent heating survey. This did not identify any faults with the system. Instead this found that the TVRs had been turned down and heat was blocked by a radiator cover. It made suggestions as to how the resident could maximise the heat.
- The landlord and resident have different views as to whether she provided gas bills to the landlord. A recommendation had been made for the landlord to repeat its offer to assess the energy usage if provided with a copy of the bills, as was previously offered.
- When a failure is identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- Compensation equivalent to a rent paidcan be appropriate where a resident has lost a service or use of part of the property. In such circumstances, compensation for distress would typically be awarded separately to reflect the individual circumstances and any vulnerabilities.
- It is not clear how the landlord determined that compensation equivalent to 1 week’s rent refund was appropriate. The landlord’s compensation policy does not refer to rent refunds, however, it sets out scales of compensation. It considers compensation between £50 and £250 to be appropriate for a ‘minor’ issue. This would include a failure to meet service standards but where the failure had no significant impact.
- In this case, the resident’s vulnerability was a significant factor in how the failures of the landlord impacted her. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken the distress caused to her based on her indivdual circumstances into account. It also failed to address her concerns that contractors had used gas and had changed the heating settings which had increased her usage. This has been considered further in the complaint handling section below.
- In conclusion, the landlord did a lot right and went beyond what it was required to do. However, it failed to address all of the resident’s concerns about the gas usage and it did not show that it had considered her vulnerabilities when assessing if it had put things right. As such, the redress was not sufficient. This amounts to service failure.
- To acknowledge the impact and distress caused to the resident by the failures identified, we have ordered compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.
Complaint handling
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If a landlord can’t respond in line with its policy then we expect it to keep the resident informed of this.
- It took the landlord 18 working days to respond at stage 1 (19 April to 17 May 2023). This was outside of its response timeframe. There is no evidence that it kept the resident informed of the delay or that it apologised for this. As such, the landlord failed to consider the impact of this delay on the resident.
- The stage 2 response was provided within the stated time frame. However, the landlord did not respond to the following aspects of complaint:
- The resident’s request to be provided with repairs logs for the heating system going back to 2017.
- Her concerns about the contractor’s use of gas during works and changing the heating settings.
- Her belief that the contractor who had carried out works following the independent survey was not independent.
- Our Compliant Handing Code (the Code) makes it clear that landlord’s should respond to all aspects of complaints. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to fully address the resident’s concerns and put things right.
- The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by this, compensation of £150 has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was distress and inconvenience caused to a resident.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the central heating system was defective, which had caused high bills.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
- Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
- Pay a total of £250 compensation to the resident. The total compensation is made up as follows:
- £100 to acknowledge the impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system and high bills.
- £150 to acknowledge the impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
- Update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
- Provide the resident with the repairs logs which are available to it in respect of issues with the heating system.
Recommendation
- It is recommended that the landlord repeats its offer to assess the resident’s gas bills in light of her concerns. In doing so, it should ask for copies of her bills to be sent to it.