Wandle Housing Association Limited (202329059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329059

Wandle Housing Association Limited

18 December 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of boiler faults.
2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat, on the second floor of a block. She is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property since December 2008. She has a small child, who was 3 years old during the period covered by this complaint.
On 6 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her boiler was not working. A heating engineer attended on the same day to carry out a repair. Following this, it contacted the landlord to suggest that, due to its age and condition, the boiler should be replaced. The landlord told it that there was “no evidence” a new boiler was needed. On 15 September 2022, the resident reported that her boiler had broken down again. An engineer attended and advised that he needed to order some parts. The landlord delivered heaters to the property on the same day.
On 27 September 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She stated that:
1. She had been without heating and hot water for “just over 3 weeks”.
2. At first she was promised a new boiler but was then told the landlord had not authorised it.
3. She had been told the operative would attend on 23 September 2022 as the parts had arrived. When she called the heating contractor on that day, it told her the wrong parts had been delivered and it would not be coming. This meant another weekend without heating and hot water.
4. The contractor offered an appointment to see if it could carry out a temporary repair while waiting for the new parts. However, she would have had to take time off work and “knew from previous experience” that the boiler would only work for “half an hour maximum”.
5. The contractor was due to attend to fix the boiler on 29 September 2022 but she wanted her complaint to be “made formal”.
The contractor returned on 28 and 30 September 2022 to fit the new parts. However, on 2 October 2022, the boiler broke down again. When the engineer attended, it advised her that the condenser pipe was blocked, causing “the boiler to fail”. The engineer explained that he was unable to access the pipe as it was located behind kitchen cabinets.
On 14 October 2022, the heating contractor sent the resident its stage 1 response on the landlord’s behalf. It stated that:
1. After returning to the property several times, it had established that the cause of the intermittent boiler fault was a blocked condenser pipe.
2. It had booked an appointment for 17 October 2022 to fit an electrode kit and to unblock the pipe. It hoped this would resolve the issue.
3. It wished to “sincerely” apologise that it had “taken slightly longer than normal” to diagnose the problem.
4. Due to the length of time taken to resolve the issue, it had shared the complaint with its management team. It said it would learn from this to prevent reoccurrence of similar delays.
The contractor attended on 17 October 2022 but was still unable to access the condenser pipe. It completed a temporary fix and left the boiler working. Due to the number of repairs that had taken place, the landlord agreed on 24 October 2022 for the contractor to submit a referral for a new boiler. On 25 October 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord that:
1. On 17 October 2022, the contractor attended to fit a sensor but was not given any information about fixing the condenser pipe. The engineer was unable to gain access to the pipe due to its location. He tried to force pressure into it but this did not work.
2. The engineer “ended up removing the boxing around the boiler pipes” and cut the pipe at the top so that the water could drip freely. This allowed the boiler to work.
3. The contractor had told her it would make a referral for a boiler replacement. This was because the whole condenser pipe would need replacing and repositioning.
4. The temporary repair had left her with “a huge bucket” on her kitchen work surface to collect dripping water, and “hardly any space to cook”. The bucket filled “quite quickly” and needed emptying “at least twice a day”.
5. She worked full time and had to rearrange her work to accommodate the repair visits.
6. The boiler was 15 years old and, “on at least 4 occasions” she had asked for a boiler replacement. However, the landlord had refused this each time and she wanted an explanation as to why.
The contractor wrote to the resident on 3 November 2022 to apologise for the service it had provided and the inconvenience caused. It sent her an acceptance form for £100 compensation it had previously offered. The date the offer was communicated is unknown. The contractor completed a boiler survey on 8 November 2022 and installed a new boiler on 10 November 2022. Following further visits by engineers on 11 and 29 November, and 11 December 2022 to fix some further faults, the boiler system was left fully functioning on 15 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It provided a summary of the actions it took to repair her boiler. It stated that:
1. It was sorry for the delays in resolving the issues with her heating and hot water.
2. It acknowledged that the resident “would have incurred some inconvenience during the winter”. It was “happy to see a new boiler was installed”.
3. There were some instances when it needed to follow a “trouble shooting process during the repairs”. This meant fitting various parts, which meant completing repairs could sometimes take longer than usual.
4. It wanted to offer an additional £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 16 February 2024 as she felt the landlord’s handling of her boiler repairs has been “ineffective”. She said that there were “numerous occasions” between 6 September to 15 December 2022 where she had been left without heating and hot water for over 5 days. She was even left with a bucket on her kitchen worktop because of a broken pipe, and had to take time off work to accommodate all the appointments. She added that the boiler was “almost 15 years old” and it was “quite obviously beyond repair”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs for heating and hot water loss during the winter period are attended to within 4 hours. The primary objective of attending an emergency is to make safe. A full repair will be undertaken “wherever practical”. The policy adds that it may be necessary to return at a later date to complete a full repair. This would be treated as a non-emergency repair (28 days) or, where necessary, within 7 days if deemed an urgent repair. It further states that repairs to gas heating and hot water are carried by gas safe engineers, and are carried out in line with its gas safety policy.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of it being acknowledged. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it has to extend a response beyond a further 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 for stage 2, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Reports of boiler faults

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the issues with the resident’s boiler were the cause of discomfort and inconvenience to her over a series of months. Our role is to consider the response by the landlord to the resident’s reports, whether it complied with its policies, current legislation and good practice, and whether its approach and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a this, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately. Furthermore, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and working order any installations it provides for space-heating and water-heating.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about heating and hot water, published in February 2021, confirms these are basic needs for any household. It states that loss of heating and hot water can be a risk to health and wellbeing. It advises that, landlords should have contingency plans in place for interruptions in supply. For example, landlords could give access to sufficient temporary heaters or facilitate the use local leisure centres for showers in cases where they had lost access to hot water.
The resident reported a number of intermittent faults with her boiler from 6 September to 15 December 2022, resulting in loss of heating and hot water. The evidence shows that, following the reports, the landlord acted appropriately by attending the property on the same day to “make safe”. When it was unable to complete some of the repairs on the same day, the records demonstrate that it had completed follow on repairs within its 28 day timescale for non-urgent repairs. This was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
On 15 September 2022, the attending engineer established that he would need to order parts to carry out the necessary repair. To ensure the resident was not left without an alternative source of heating while waiting for the repair to be completed, the records show that the contractor had delivered heaters on the same day. This was appropriate.
However, the resident reported that there were 2 separate occasions where the boiler had not been working for over 10 days. This meant she had no access to a reliable hot water supply for long periods of time. This would have caused particular inconvenience while looking after a young child. There is no indication the landlord discussed with the resident whether she had access to alternative bathing facilities. It could have checked whether she was being supported by friends of family or whether it would have been helpful to arrange temporary access to a local leisure centre or gym, for example. Making efforts to satisfy itself that the family had some access to hot water while repairs were ongoing would have been appropriate. That the landlord did not make such enquiries was a failing.
The records show that there were delays in attending to some repairs. For example, an appointment scheduled for 23 September 2022 had to be rescheduled for 28 September 2022. This was because the incorrect parts had been delivered. There was a further delay between when the resident reported a fault on 2 October 2022 and the landlord attended on 17 October 2022 to carry out a temporary fix. The delay on this occasion was because the engineer was unable to access the condenser pipe, which had been found to be the source of the problem. The resident’s frustration at the repairs taking longer than expected is noted. However, the evidence shows that the contractor had completed those repairs within 13 and 15 days respectively. This was within the landlord’s 28 day timescale.
It is noted that the contractor failed to notify the resident that there would be a delay to the repair that was scheduled for 23 September 2022. It was only when she contacted it on that day to enquire why an engineer had not attended that it told her the appointment would have to be rescheduled. This was a further failing. Given the resident had to arrange the appointment around her work commitments, this would have been of particular inconvenience.
The evidence shows the contractor made reasonable efforts to restore the heating system. However, the records suggest the engineers attended the property about 11 times over the 3 month period in order to either restore the heating supply or identify the cause of the intermittent fault. This would likely have caused a significant amount of disruption, particularly given the resident was having to fit appointments around her work and looking after a young child.
The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving some repairs, such as boiler faults, is not always straightforward and can involve specialist technical expertise. It could be a case of ruling out causes until the source of the problem is identified. Where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord, or its contractor. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. Had the contractor taken this approach, it could have helped avoid potentially avoidable visits and therefore minimised any disruption.
It is acknowledged that landlords have to manage their often limited resources as effectively as possible. It is also noted that the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. For these reasons, it is reasonable for them to make attempts to repair boilers before deciding on a replacement. When it initially appeared the faults were unrelated, the landlord’s efforts to address them before relacing the boiler cannot be criticised, particularly when records show the repairs were being carried out in a timely manner.
However, the evidence shows that, following its visit on 6 September 2022, the contractor advised the landlord that, because of the age and condition of the boiler, it should be replaced. The records indicate that it chose not to follow this advice as it felt there was “no evidence” a new boiler was needed. It is unclear what evidence it was relying on. There is no obligation on landlords to follow every recommendation made by its contractors. However, given the advice came from a qualified heating engineer, it would have been reasonable for it to have properly considered this advice.
The landlord could have further explored whether a boiler replacement could have been the most appropriate option at the time. If, following an assessment, it felt this was not the case, it should have then made a record of the reasoning behind its decision, explaining why it was not following the advice that it had been given. The landlord cannot evidence that it had done this. It has therefore failed to demonstrate that it acted fairly and properly prior to deciding against replacing the boiler.
It is noted that, only 2 months later and following several attempts to repair it, the landlord agreed to a replacement. It could reasonably have avoided this delay by following up on the contractor’s advice and making an earlier assessment of whether the property needed a new boiler. That it chose not to arrange for a boiler survey when the contractor had first suggested it was a missed opportunity. This left the resident with the impacts from repeated boiler faults and loss of hot water for an unnecessarily long period of time.
It is noted that, once it completed the survey, the contractor was quick to replace the boiler. However, due to the need for a number of subsequent repairs, the heating system was not made fully functional until 15 December 2022. This was over a month after the new boiler was installed, and prolonged the resident’s reliance on alternative sources of heating and hot water. The landlord’s failure to fully resolve the issue for over 3 months caused ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident. That the landlord did not give adequate consideration to its heating contractor’s recommendation in early September 2022 was a failing.
It is not clear when the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The contractor did not make this offer in its stage 1 response, although it sent the resident a compensation acceptance form afterwards, on 4 November 2022. The contractor also offered its sincere apologies for the delays the resident had experienced.
The attempts by the landlord and its contractor to put things right are noted. However, the landlord’s offer does not go far enough to recognise the impact on the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to properly consider its contractor’s recommendation. The resident and her family were left for around over 3 months with an unreliable heating supply, and for long periods without hot water. The household was therefore put through avoidable inconvenience. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress.

Complaint

The landlord took 14 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The evidence shows that the delay can be attributed to the fact it did not acknowledge the complaint until 7 days after the resident raised it. Although the overall delay in issuing a response was not excessive, the time taken to provide an acknowledgement was a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 20 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. The records show that it took nearly a year for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response after the resident escalated her complaint on 5 October 2022. There is no evidence it sent any holding replies or contacted her to apologise and explain the reasons for the delays. There is no indication the landlord made any attempts to agree any new timescales or keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigation. This was a failing.
It is important landlords’ investigations are thorough and considered. For this reason, it is acknowledged some complaints can take longer than others to respond to. However, landlords should ensure they communicate any potential delays to their residents. This will help maintain transparency and a positive working relationship between the landlord and resident throughout the complaints process. It would also help reassure residents they have not been forgotten about.
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address the concerns the resident raised about why it had turned down repeated requests for a new boiler. This resulted in the landlord issuing an inadequate response. Given its delayed handling of the stage 2 complaint, its failure to properly consider the complaint was a failing. Our recent investigations into the landlord have identified that this is a recurring theme. We have therefore made an order relating to training for complaint handling staff which should ensure they address all concerns raised by a residents in their complaints.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. It has not been able to provide us with evidence it has a current compensation policy. Given its offer is not based on any specific guidance, it is therefore unclear how the landlord had arrived at this figure. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord considers formulating a compensation policy so staff have proper guidance on how to calculate appropriate levels of redress for the failings it identifies.
The landlord’s offer of compensation is noted. However, the number of failings identified in its handling of this complaint, and the inconvenience this would likely have caused to the resident means the Service has made a finding of maladministration. We will therefore order the landlord to pay the resident redress to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler faults.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation, which is calculated as follows:
  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to demonstrate it had properly considered advice to replace her boiler at an earlier stage.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord is to consider further training for complaint handling staff. The training should ensure that staff are fully aware of the provisions contained within the Code, especially the importance of properly addressing all aspects of a complaint, and agreeing new timescales with residents, and providing explanations, when responses are likely to be delayed. The landlord is to provide the Service with evidence it has carried out the abovementioned order within the timescale stated above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider developing a compensation policy to ensure staff have proper guidance on how to calculate appropriate levels of redress for any failings it identifies.