Town and Country Housing (202301922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301922

Town and Country Housing

29 January 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:
1. A loss of heating and hot water in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its officer.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She occupies a 3-bedroom terraced property. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system but she informed it of various health issues throughout the complaints process.
On 9 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had no heating and hot water. She also told it she was disabled. The landlord’s contractor attended that day but was unable to fix the heating as it required a new part. The contractor left 3 temporary heaters.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 December 2022. She said:
1. the contractor had told her it would attend on 12 December 2022 to repair the heating system but she had not heard from it
2. she contacted the contractor and it told her it would attend on 13 December 2022 but did not turn up
3. that she was on oxygen overnight due to heart and lung issues
4. she had waited up for the contractor until 10pm and, as a result, said she did not get enough oxygen
5. the heaters were insufficient and she had spent over £50 running them
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 16 December 2022. It noted that the contractor was due to attend on 15 December 2022. It apologised that the repair had not been completed sooner but explained that the contractor was busy due to the cold weather and had to source parts. It offered £30 for the additional heating costs but found its service had been acceptable.
The contractor attended the property on 16 December 2022 and completed repairs to the heating system.
The resident escalated the complaint on 23 December 2022. She said:
1. the landlord had not acknowledged that the contractor had failed to attend on 15 December 2022, nor had it mentioned her vulnerability
2. the part was available in hardware stores so the delay was unnecessary
3. the landlord’s offer of compensation was insulting given the energy costs she had accrued
4. the situation had caused her distress and anxiety, and she said it had not helped her breathing and heart issues
5. it was unacceptable that the landlord had left her in sub-zero temperatures without central heating given her vulnerabilities
The landlord’s complaint handler spoke to the resident on 5 January 2023 to further explore her complaint. During this call she raised concerns about the conduct of the stage 1 complaint handler during a phone call she had with them. She said the officer had suggested that some people say they have vulnerabilities when they do not to get things done quicker. The resident felt the officer had implied her vulnerabilities were not genuine.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 31 January 2023. It said:
1. that its contractor had to procure the part through an approved supply line and road closures meant there was a delay between it ordering the part and it being delivered
2. the contractor had fitted the part and resolved the heating issues within 7 days, in line with the terms of its contract
3. the contractor was aware of her vulnerabilities and had not left her in sub-zero temperatures as it had provided temporary heaters
The landlord said the compensation it had offered was in line with levels across the sector and that it could not offer a rate based on the current elevated cost of living. However, it offered a further £30 for the missed appointment on 15 December 2023. Overall, it considered its response to be especially fast given the scale of callouts due to the weather.
The resident was unhappy with the response and referred the complaint to this Service. She would like more compensation as reimbursement for the energy costs she incurred and an apology from the landlord. She wants it to review its position with regards reimbursement and its contract with the contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident contracted pneumonia on 3 January 2023. She noted that although she is susceptible to this, she feels the lack of heating was a contributory cause and the stress and anxiety of the situation exacerbated her existing health conditions.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she feels her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which she experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to lack of heating and hot water

Under the terms of the tenancy and section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair and working order. This includes installations for the supply water, gas, electricity, and space and water heating.
The landlord sets out timescales for responding to repairs in its responsive repairs policy. Where the repair poses a high risk to people or property, and accounting for vulnerability, it aims to attend within 2 hours and make repairs within 24 hours. It will attend to non-urgent repairs within 28 days.
It is reasonable to consider a total loss of heating and hot water in winter as an emergency repair and the resident’s vulnerability added to the urgency. Upon the resident’s report, the landlord sent its contractor to conduct repairs the same day. It is not clear whether it attended within 2 hours, as per its policy, but its response is considered prompt.
The contractor was unable to complete repairs to the heating system that day as it required a part. While according to the landlord’s policy it should complete repairs within 24 hours, it is understandable that it was unable to do so without the part. It left portable electric heaters which was an appropriate temporary solution. Its initial response with regards the loss of heating was therefore reasonable.
Within the job notes the contractor confirmed that it had restored hot water on its initial visit. The resident told this Service this was not the case but there is no further evidence either way. In the absence of information showing that the resident remained without hot water throughout the week, no adverse finding is made.
It took the contractor 7 days to source the part and complete the repair. The resident noted it could have sourced the part promptly from a hardware store. While the resident’s frustration was understandable, the landlord offered a reasonable explanation for the contractor’s delay in sourcing the part within its final response. The contractor had to operate within procurement procedures and weather conditions resulted in road closures impacting delivery.
The landlord said that it had complied with its contract with the contractor by completing the repair within 7 days. The resident considered this time scale to be unreasonable and has asked the landlord to review the contract. It is not for the Ombudsman o give an opinion about the landlord’s contractual/commercial relationships.
However, we can consider whether it responded appropriately according to the circumstances of the resident’s case. The Ombudsman appreciates it was distressing for her to be without central heating for a week, particularly during the coldest week of the year and given her health issues. We would expect a landlord to rectify a loss of heating at the soonest opportunity and to expedite repairs based on these factors.
The resident felt the response time did not show due regard for her vulnerability and noted the landlord had not acknowledged her health issues when responding to her complaint at stage 1. In its final response the landlord confirmed the contractor was aware she was vulnerable based on her conversations with it and said that its response time reflected this. It was understandable that the resident felt the landlord had not considered her needs given it did not address this point in its initial response. Because it did so in its final response this is considered a shortcoming rather than a failure.
It is not possible to determine the extent to which the contractor prioritised the resident’s repair. This would rely on an understanding of its resources, the number of other jobs it had, and the circumstances of its other customers and jobs. However, there is no evidence it disregarded her vulnerability and it provided reasonable explanations of why its contractor could not complete the repairs sooner. Its contractor was reliant on sourcing the part, it said it was experiencing a high number of callouts, and it put mitigations in place in the form of temporary heating. Therefore, no fault is found with the landlord based on its contractor’s response time.
The contractor did not communicate appropriately with the resident throughout the week which was unreasonable. It told her it would attend on 12 December 2022 but did not schedule this. It then failed to attend on 13 and 15 December 2022. It told her it had a busy schedule and that she should assume it was not coming if it did not do so by 10pm on those days. It should have updated her. The resident was vulnerable and had stayed up late for these appointments. Her frustration was compounded by the difficulty she experienced trying to get through to the contractor for an update. She noted it took over an hour each time she called them. The resident considered the lack of communication to have been the main cause of her distress.
While the resident’s concerns related to the contractor’s poor communication, the landlord was responsible for investigating and addressing her concerns. A landlord is responsible for the services it provides to a resident, and this extends to the provision of services by external contractors working on its behalf.
The landlord followed up with the contractor to establish why it had not attended on 15 December 2022. It should have checked whether the contractor had attended and what the status of the repair was prior to issuing its initial complaint response on 16 December 2022. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord drafted the response prior to this, it was hasty of it to issue it without making these checks and this caused the resident unnecessary frustration. In its final response it identified appropriate learning, noting it would review its systems for recording and reporting on appointments with the contractor, allowing it to monitor more effectively.
The landlord accepted that the contractor had not contacted the resident to rearrange the missed appointment on 15 December 2022 until the following day. It offered her £30 for the inconvenience which was reasonable. However, given the contractor also missed an earlier appointment on 13 December 2022, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to also offer an appropriate remedy for this. It could also have apologised for the missed appointment on behalf of its contractor.
The resident also reported in her initial complaint that the temporary heaters were insufficient. We would expect the landlord to have explored this or to have arranged for additional heaters. There is no evidence it did, but it intervened by scheduling the contractor’s visit on 15 December 2022, which was the following day. Given it tried to progress the repair and expected that it would be completed promptly, no fault is found with the landlord on this point.
The landlord offered the resident £30 in total to cover the cost of the heaters which was unreasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer £3.50 per heater per day, to cover additional electricity costs. Therefore, according to its policy, the landlord should have offered the resident £171.50 as reimbursement for the 7-day period that the 3 heaters were in use.
In summary, considering all factors, the landlord’s response to the resident’s loss of heating and hot water was reasonable. While it was understandably distressing for the resident to be without central heating for a week, the landlord gave appropriate explanations for the delays and provided mitigation in the form of temporary heaters. However, it did not provide sufficient compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the contractor’s missed appointments. Nor did it reimburse the resident a reasonable sum for her energy costs. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £231.50 in compensation.
In communication with this Service, the landlord said it did not have details of the resident’s vulnerabilities recorded on its system. The resident disclosed various health concerns to the landlord throughout the complaints process, including in her stage 1 response when she shared that she had heart and lung issues. She gave specific information about the extent of her underlying medical conditions in discussion with the stage 2 complaint handler. She explained that she had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory failure, heart failure, lipoedema, and lymphedema in her legs and stomach. She also disclosed that she had post-traumatic stress disorder.
It was therefore inaccurate of the landlord to say the resident had not provided this information. It should contact her to understand more about her needs and update its records.

Conduct of the landlord’s officer

The resident complained about the conduct of the stage 1 complaint handler. She said the officer appeared to be questioning her vulnerability and she felt offended. The resident shared this with the stage 2 complaint handler when discussing the escalation of her complaint. While the resident raised this after the landlord’s stage 1 response, the complaint handler said she would consider this as part of the investigation. The landlord therefore had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond to this through the complaints process.
The complaint handler contacted the officer in question to explore the resident’s concerns. The notes of the call show that the officer said she did not recall making comments about the resident’s vulnerability and would not have said anything that could cause offence. The landlord said that it does not record all calls so it was unable to check what the officer said.
The landlord did not respond to this complaint point in its final response. However, it said there were lessons for it to learn in terms of checking its complaints communications sensitively with resident’s experiences in mind. It also discussed this further with the resident after its final response and explained that it had been unable to check the details of the conversation.
Overall, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and updated her with its findings. It also identified learning. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.
The resident also felt the officer’s communication demonstrated that the complaints team did not have access to information about her vulnerability. As discussed, the landlord should update its records so that all staff can access relevant information about her health conditions and needs.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to a loss of heating and hot water in the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its officer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £231.50 compensation comprised of:
1. £60 for its contractor’s failure to inform the resident that it could not attend 2 appointments. The landlord may deduct the £30 it has already offered if this has been paid.
2. £171.50 as reimbursement for costs incurred by the resident in running the temporary heaters. The landlord may deduct the £30 it has already offered if this has been paid.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident to understand more about her health conditions/needs and updates its records.
2. Considers whether it would be appropriate to write a letter of apology to the resident for any offence that it may have caused.