Waverley Borough Council (202224018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224018

Waverley Borough Council

11 September 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty storage heater at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom, ground floor flat in an independent living scheme. The landlord has recorded the resident having physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2022. He informed it that his living room storage heater was not working. The resident explained an electrician completing the annual safety check had reminded him that the heater had been identified as faulty during the previous annual check. The resident emailed the landlord again on 27 October 2022. He said his storage heater repair remained outstanding and the landlord had not responded to his concerns.
On 31 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. Its correspondence was a continuation of a stage 2 complaint response for another matter. Within which, it said it had been unable to find any record of an email from the resident on 6 October 2022 regarding his faulty storage heater. It advised it had arranged an engineer to visit the property to complete the necessary repairs.
On 16 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he still had no heating in his living room. Furthermore, no engineer had attended the property to complete the repair. On 22 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that an engineer, familiar with the faulty storage heater, had attended the previous day. The resident said the engineer informed him it had sent copies of advisory notices to the landlord after each annual inspection. Therefore, the resident considered the landlord had previously been informed that the storage heater was broken.
Following communication from the Housing Ombudsman Service, the landlord informed the resident on 9 October 2023 that it would investigate his complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP).
The landlord provided its stage 2 final complaint response on 24 October 2023. The landlord said:
1. It had not been aware of the faulty storage heater at the resident’s property until he mentioned it in October 2022.
2. It arranged a priority repair once the resident informed it of the fault.
3. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay in the engineers attendance. The appointment took place on 21 December 2022 and installation of the replacement storage heater on 6 January 2023.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident reported a fault with the replacement unit, which it rectified on 16 January 2023.
5. It offered £100 for its delay in dealing with the resident’s repair.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. In February 2023 he said while the landlord had replaced the storage heater, there remained an electrical supply issue preventing the heater from working. While it was repaired on 20 February 2023, the resident said the lack of heating had caused damp and mould in the property. He considered the landlord should offer more compensation because his health had been affected by the lack of heating. His complaint became one we could formally consider on 11 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence described the landlord’s handling of his repair and complaint affected his health and wellbeing. We do not doubt these comments.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty storage heater at the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
There is evidence the resident informed the landlord of his dissatisfaction that his living room storage heater was faulty on 6 October 2022. Given this information, the landlord had been put on notice of a repair need. It is therefore unclear why it did not demonstrate investigating the resident’s comments. Had the landlord done so, it would have identified whether it was appropriate to raise a service request for a repair and or log a stage 1 complaint. The evidence shows the landlord did neither at this stage. This was not appropriate and left a vulnerable resident without heating in his living room.
While we note the landlord said it had no record of the resident’s email of 6 October 2022, copies have been supplied as evidence. Therefore, the landlord did not demonstrate effective record keeping practices in this instance.
The resident’s correspondence at this stage suggests the storage heater had been faulty for at least 12 months. The resident states, while “he knew but had forgotten” about it, the electrician completing the annual safety check reminded him. While we acknowledge and do not doubt the resident’s comments, no evidence has been supplied by either party to demonstrate the resident had informed the landlord of the repair need prior to 6 October 2022.
While we would expect the landlord to act on any reports of repairs, it is reasonable that a landlord is only in a position to complete a repair if it knows about it. The resident’s tenancy states that it is a resident’s responsibility to report immediately, any repairs that the landlord is responsible for. Therefore, without evidence, it is only possible for us to assess the landlord’s actions from 6 October 2022 when the resident informed it of the repair need.
However, given the resident says the landlord’s contractor informed him the landlord was provided with advisory notices after each annual check, it is unclear why the landlord has been unable to demonstrate effective record keeping of this issue. While we note the landlord’s explanation that the electrical contractor was no longer trading, the lack of accurate records demonstrated ineffective knowledge and information management (KIM) by the landlord during the time it had been working with the contractor.
Without good KIM, a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future.
In this case, we have seen limited evidence from the landlord which demonstrated how it monitored the performance of its contractor. Nor that a suitable framework was in place to ensure staff and contractors completed effective record keeping and data entry. Therefore, it is unclear how it accessed the data it needed to ensure jobs were recorded and completed within expected timescales. This was not appropriate and delayed its ability to progress the resident’s repair. This failure caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while he sought to progress matters.
The lack of follow up by the landlord to monitor the electrical inspections is of particular concern. These inspections relate to health and safety issues which could affect residents. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to review its processes.
There is evidence the resident chased the landlord on 27 October 2022, 16 December 2022, and 21 December 2022. His correspondence clearly states that he had no heating in his living room and temperatures were cold. While it was appropriate for the landlord to raise a repair on 27 October 2022, the resident waited 93 calendar days, until 6 January 2023, for the landlord to replace the storage heater. While there is no evidence of total heating loss at the property, this was a reasonable amount of time, given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
Furthermore, the replacement unit failed after only 1 day. The landlord’s repair records show that the repair was not rectified until 20 February 2023. The resident had therefore been without heating in his living room between at least 6 October 2022 to 20 February 2023, 137 calendar days.
While the landlord’s policies are silent on the timescales it commits to complete such a repair, a wait of 137 days is not reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate what steps it took to ensure the vulnerable resident’s needs were met. Given the information available to it, this did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the elderly resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
We note the landlord’s communication to the resident on 4 January 2023 states we are “sorry that you did not contact our senior living community officer, to let them know of your heating problems. Had you done this they would have been able to give you a temporary heater.” While it is reasonable to expect a resident to report a repair, this communication is dismissive of the resident’s situation. At this stage the landlord had known about the resident’s repair for 3 months yet expected him to contact its officers to supply heaters. Its comment lacked any demonstration that it had been proactive to offer assistance or monitored its contractor to ensure the resident’s needs were met.
The landlord’s website states its contractors will supply temporary heaters when there has been a loss of heating. While we acknowledge the resident did not suffer a total loss of heating, there is no evidence the contractor offered a temporary alternative. It is unreasonable that the landlord expected the resident to manage his own service request and put the responsibility to ask for temporary heaters on him. This shows a lack of oversight, or empathy by the landlord towards the resident and did nothing to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
We note from the evidence the resident had previously experienced damp and mould at the property. Given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s circumstances, it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to ensure there were no recurring issues due to the loss of a heat source.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from hazards, including protection from infection, damp and mould, and excess cold. Given the resident’s loss of a heat source throughout the winter and his reports of cold temperatures, it was unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate taking more decisive action sooner to inspect and resolve the matter.
There is no conclusive evidence the resident had been without a storage heater in his living room since 2021. However, the wait of 137 days for the landlord to provide a lasting remedy was unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord failed to demonstrate effective record keeping or monitoring of its contractors. The subsequent gaps in the landlord’s knowledge and repair delays resulted in the vulnerable resident being caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to ensure the resident had adequate heating failed to meet the obligations of the LTA 1985 or HHSRS.
Given the identified failures, the landlord’s offer of £100 was not proportionate redress. The resident was caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience by the landlord’s failures. Therefore, based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter and it is ordered to pay £300. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. At stage 1, a resident could expect a response within 10 working days and within 15 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and met the expectations of the Code published on 1 April 2022.
There is evidence the resident expressed dissatisfaction that his living room storage heater was faulty on 6 October 2022. The landlord should have provided an acknowledgement by 11 October 2022 and a stage 1 response by 20 October 2022. Considering the landlord’s relevant complaint handling policy it was not appropriate that it failed to achieve either of these dates.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord provided any formal acknowledgement or a stage 1 response regarding the resident’s complaint. He was required to seek our assistance for his complaint to be formally recognised. This was not appropriate and caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident while he sought help to progress matters.
The Code and the landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. It is clear from the resident’s email that he was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the resident’s email on 6 October 2022 as a complaint and responded accordingly. Not doing so was not appropriate. The landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy or meet the expectations of the Code. This demonstrated a complaint handling training need.
While there is evidence the landlord emailed the resident on 4 January 2023, it said it had no prior knowledge of the resident’s faulty storage heater. We did not consider the landlord’s response sufficient evidence not to follow its ICP. We asked the landlord to ensure it provided the resident with a formal stage 2 final response. Given there is email evidence the resident initially raised dissatisfaction on 6 October 2022, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not provide its final response until 24 October 2023. A total of 382 calendar days.
Paragraph 4.17 of the Code says landlords should recognise the impact that being complained about can have on future service delivery. Landlords should ensure that staff are supported and engaged in the complaints process, including the learning that can be gained.
While the landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the delays to complete the storage heater repair and replacement, it did not demonstrate any learning. Its complaints handling made no reference to the actions it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. Therefore, its handling of the resident’s complaint showed no commitment to improving its services or meeting the expectations of the Code. This was not appropriate.
During communication with us on 15 July 2024, the landlord said it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so it had revisited the question of compensation. It said:
1. “With the benefit of hindsight,” it accepted the resident had raised dissatisfaction on 6 October 2022.
2. It acknowledged it should have treated the resident’s email as a complaint at stage 1 of its ICP.
3. It offered an additional £250 compensation to remedy its complaint handling failures.
The landlord’s offer post ICP can be said to be a remedy to put things right for the resident. However, it failed to adequately assess the appropriate level of redress required within its ICP. The Ombudsman’s outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined under such circumstances.
The landlord failed to recognise how its delays to recognise and act on the resident’s complaint adversely affected him. Furthermore, it failed to offer proportionate redress or put things right within its ICP. As such, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling and it is ordered to pay its offer of £250 made post ICP.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty storage heater at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty storage heater. £100 offered at stage 2 can be deducted from this sum if already paid.
  2. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. £250 offered outside the landlord’s ICP can deducted if already paid.
The landlord is ordered to demonstrate that it has provided staff involved with this case with complaint handling refresher training, within the last 6 months. If it is unable to do so, it is ordered to provide training to ensure complaints are managed in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. Furthermore, it should:
1. Review its policy and practice of following up repairs after electrical inspections.
2. Ensure there is effective internal communication. This must include that teams are aware of relevant roles monitoring contractors performance, record keeping, and keeping residents updated.
3. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
4. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Report (KIM) May 2023 to demonstrate how it will improve its service.
5. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its record keeping, ensuring that it is aware of what works have been completed by its contractors to its properties. It may wish to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.