Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Willow Tree Housing Partnership Limited (202216916)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216916

Willow Tree Housing Partnership Limited

19 April 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her boiler and gas safety checks, including the conduct of the landlord’s contractors and staff and the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident occupied a 1-bedroom ground floor flat under an assured tenancy which began in 2008. She reported that she was 76 years old.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair of the “equipment” it provided for heating and hot water.
  2. The resident had an obligation to give access to the landlord at a reasonable time to inspect or carry out works, for essential servicing and before the expiry of the annual gas safety certificate. It would give reasonable prior notice, except in the case of an emergency.
  3. Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure that any relevant gas fitting:
    1. Is maintained in a safe condition.
    2. Checked for safety within 12 months of being installed and at intervals of not more than 12 months. 
    3. Such checks are carried out by, or by an employee approved by the Health and Safety Executive.
  4. Under its repairs policy, gas boilers were to be repaired every 15 years but also subject to stock condition. Repair timescales were not provided to this Service.
  5. Under its complaints policy, the landlord would respond at Stage 1 of a complaint within 10 working days and within 20 working days at Stage 2. At either stage if it was unable to reply within that timescale, it should provide an explanation to the resident. A complaint could be referred to a panel at Stage 3.

Chronology

  1. According to an undated letter from the resident to the landlord, headed “1st stage formal complaint”, she had reported an issue with her heating in October 2021. On 4 November 2021, the landlord’s contractor (“G”) confirmed there was a fault but did not contact her. She contacted them on 16 December 2021. The contractor replaced the “heating dial”. On the next day, the display showed “off”. It was very cold. It raised an emergency repair on 17 December 2021.  On 22 December 2021, the display was incorrect. On 23 December 2021, the contractor ordered a “wheel” and on 6 January 2022, it fitted a new “wheel” or “disc”.
  2. The landlord wrote on 5 January 2022 with its Stage 1 response. It said the complaint was that communication regarding the heating repair was poor. Several visits took place but the heating was not resolved. It found that the communication with the contractor was “ineffectual” and that it failed to update her regarding appointments and works. It would monitor jobs with contractors. There was no evidence that the resident escalated this complaint to Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. According to an invoice dated 14 March 2022, the resident arranged for a plumber to fit what appears to have been described on the invoice as a thermostat.
  4. On 4 October 2022, the landlord wrote with a Stage 1 complaint response to a complaint by the resident it had received 27 September 2022 as follows:
    1. The complaint was that the landlord’s contractor “was cocky”.  It had been unable to identify the incident she described.
    2. It confirmed that contactors should ask permission to use her bathroom. The landlord enquired whether her towels were damaged in which case it would pay compensation.
    3. In December 2021, it had offered her £50 compensation in relation to a previous report about a leak but had not sent her the payment. It apologised.
  5. According to the landlord’s records, the resident telephoned the landlord on 14 December 2022. One of the landlord’s contractors had set the heating to come on at the same time as the hot water. She was not happy with this setting.
  6. The Gas Safety Certificate dated 14 December 2022 showed there were no faults with the boiler and that was over 10 years old.
  7. On 22 December 2022, the resident wrote with a letter headed “stage 2 part of formal complaint”. She asked landlord to write to her instead of telephoning. Contractor M had attended on 17 December 2022. The housing officer “wanted her to know” that access was allowed under her tenancy agreement. She asked him to stop contacting her. A local heating engineer had informed her that the visits were not necessary and would cost £200. She wanted the landlord to control G and M’s “bad behaviour”. 
  8. According to the landlord’s records, on the same day the landlord advised the resident that the heating system required a part. The resident said she did not want contractor M to attend again.
  9. The resident wrote again with an undated complaint date–stamped as received by the landlord on 17 January 2023 as follows:
    1. M attended unexpectedly on 14 December 2022 to service the boiler. She had not receiving notice of the visit. The operative had used her toilet. She asked him to find another before he got there. She said there had been nothing wrong with the boiler before that day. After the visit, the radiators were on but she only required the heating to be on at night.
  10. The landlord records of 23 January 2023 noted a telephone conversation with the resident about her complaint as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay. The complaint would be dealt with under Stage 1 of the complaints procedure.
    2. She wanted to use her own contractor. It explained that it had a contract with G and their subcontractor M. The decision would require senior management approval. M had attended on 14 December 2022 to carry out her gas service without notice. After the service, her heating and hot water was on “in unison” rather than separately as before. She arranged for a local firm to adjust program the system. M had said there were additional works required. The plumber informed her that the works would cost £200 but were not necessary. It would respond by 1 February 2023. A housing officer had said her tenancy agreement required her to give the landlord’s contractors access. She felt M had caused her “nothing but problems”. It explained the tenancy was correct, with the “caveat” there should be notice.
  11. On 26 January 2023, the landlord noted a further conversation as follows:
    1. The resident queried why the complaint was being dealt with under Stage 1 of its process, when this Service’s letter stated it should be under Stage 2. It explained this was a different complaint to the previous complaint.
    2. The landlord would not be able to arrange for her contractor to carry out any servicing or repairs as it had a contract with G. It had discussed this with senior management.
    3. The contractor would telephone her to confirm the annual servicing and that a Maintenance Officer would be present for the duration of the appointment.
    4. Neither would use her toilet while there. Both would ensure the heating and hot water programme would be as she wanted and working. It had tried to contact her plumber.
    5. It asked how much their bill was. She said it had not charged for its attendance in January 2023.
    6. The resident said she was unhappy as she wanted “the friendly, nice local firm involved”.
    7. It arranged to call back after a few days,
  12. The landlord wrote on 30 January 2023 with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. It referred to her complaint received on 17 January 2023.
    2. It had responded to her complaint of 22 September 2022 on 4 October 2022 was about a separate matter.
    3. It was “regrettable” that on both occasions a contractor used her toilet at home, even though in September she had given her permission. The contractors would not use her toilet in future.
    4. The current complaint related to a separate incident involved the heating contractor. It understood that this complaint was about the quality of the annual gas service carried out on 14 December 2022. The appointment letter was mailed out to her on 29 November 2022. It apologised that she had not received that letter due to a postal strike. In the future, it would phone her to confirm the date of the appointment, prior to a letter being sent. A note of this had been made on its computer system.
    5. Two hours after the appointment, the programmed heating/hot water was “out of synch”. According to her local gas contractor, it was not necessary to replace the light on the boiler. The gas safety check was carried out satisfactorily. There was a faulty light on the boiler that indicates when the boiler is firing that required replacing. It did not affect the boiler working. She had refused the works.
    6. The landlord would attend with the contractor to ensure the settings on the system/programmer were left as she wanted them. 
    7. She wanted the landlord to change contractors. It was appointing contractors to work within tenants’ homes as well as providing an out–of–office hours’ service to all its tenants. The contractors went through a thorough selection process before being awarded this contract.
    8. It apologised for any upset caused by a member of staff. He was explaining that a clause in the tenancy agreement allowed access for repairs and servicing but was unaware the contractor’s letter had not arrived. It noted that he could have listened better. The landlord would use this incident as learning to improve its services in future. It had understood she did not need a visit, the phone call was sufficient. She could request a visit in the future.
  13. On 17 April 2023, it wrote with its final response to its Stage 1 response in addition to its letter 30 January 2023 as follows:
    1. It repeated the contents of the letter of 30 January 2023.
    2. The complaint of 22 September 2022 was about a separate matter. It explained the complaint process.
    3. The contractors met the required due diligence criteria and contract requirements not least to ensure they were gas safe registered and all engineers met the gas safe professional training requirements and also that all of their staff had been DBS checked to ensure safeguarding for its tenants. The contractor was to last a further 4–year period.
    4. Additional training had been provided to the relevant staff member to ensure that he understood the annual gas check process and listen with empathy to residents’ concerns.
    5. It invited her to provide an invoice for her plumber and it would reimburse the cost.
  14. On 25 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident. It referred to the resident’s message of 20 April 2023 requesting that the complaint be escalated. It would pass the complaint to a review panel to consider. It requested her reasons why she was unhappy with the Stage 1 response.
  15. On 4 May 2023, it wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay and confusion the ongoing correspondence had caused.
    2. It was not convening a panel, in order to ensure the matter was finalised quickly so as not to cause any further delay or anxiety. It offered it to have the matter heard by an “independent” panel made up of Board Members if she requested this.
    3. It explained there were 2 contractors to ensure sufficient coverage. The landlord reviewed their engineer’s competencies annually to carry work out on behalf of the landlord.
    4. It had reviewed the gas safety certificate issued on 14 December 2023. The checks were completed and found to be satisfactory and signed off by a gas safe registered competent engineer.
    5. In relation to the faults following the safety check, this “can happen, whether due to human error or coincidence should parts fail”. It appreciated that this did not give her confidence in the company completing the work. It could arrange for an independent gas audit to be completed on her heating system to provide further assurance that her heating system was functioning as it should and to ensure that all controls and thermostats were set to ensure she got optimum use from the gas heating system.
    6. To regain her confidence and trust, and as it “put tenant safety at the top of everything”, it reiterated the following remedies:
      1. It would telephone her to confirm the date of the gas servicing appointment as well as sending out an appointment letter.
      2. A housing officer would attend with the gas contractor on the annual gas service check. It would ensure that the system was working fully, that all heating controls thermostatic values were operating fully and she was happy in how to use them.
    7. It apologised that she felt she had not no option but to resort to having a local heating service attend following the visits from its contractor. “This should never happen”. The landlord provided a 24/7 out of hours service for emergency works, such as if there was no heating or hot water. It understood that she felt no confidence in the contractors.
    8. The member of staff had said that he did not recall offering £50 towards the costs for a local boiler engineer to fix the boiler. It would reimburse her for the expense and requested receipts.
    9. In relation to the “contractors making a mess, leaving gunge and debris which they did not clean up”, it apologised that her home was not left clean and tidy after the contractors had visited. The contractors had been categorically advised that as part of the service ensuring a tenant’s home was left as they found it, that all debris and associated detritus from their works should be removed and the area cleaned down. It would be regularly “refreshed” that customer service was included in their training.
    10. It apologised about her report that the landlord’s staff informing the resident “forcibly” that annual checks would be carried out at any time without notice, which the resident said frightened her and caused her to worry that she would not have heating and hot water again. It understood how this messaging would have caused anxiety and fear. This was a relatively new member of staff and his “over enthusiastic” interpretation of the gas regulations should not have caused fear. It had since carried out refresher training for the entire team. Furthermore, ongoing training was scheduled “to focus on the provision of excellent customer service”.
    11. While it was required to complete an annual gas servicing check, it would engage with the tenant at all times, ensure that it used the most appropriate communication channels and make appointments at times that were best suited to its tenants needs. Homes should never be without heat or hot water and where there was a breakdown in the heating system secondary heating or hot water provision should be ensured until full repairs are completed.
    12. It would not contract a local engineer. It was required to undertake procurement exercises. The contractual agreement would not enable it to issue work to other contractors. The procurement exercise was detailed and all due diligence was carried out. The landlord ensured competent experienced gas contractors were awarded the contract. The management of gas heating for landlords was heavily regulated and it was incumbent on it ensure that the gas heating system was fully operational and meeting the required standard.
    13. It had apologised for what the resident described as “bad treatment”. The delay in promptly escalating this matter to Stage 2 as requested has compounded matters and for which it was “truly sorry”. It was reviewing its overall complaints process.
    14. It offered £150 for the delay in the complaint response.
  16. According to the landlord’s records, the resident wrote to the landlord with the invoice on 15 May 2023. The landlord refunded this to the resident on 21 July 2023.
  17. On 15 May 2023, the resident reported that the radiators were working from “too high a setting”.
  18. On 1 June 2023, an inspection by a contractor found the heating system was working efficiently and safely.
  19. On 6 June 2023 the resident’s councillor reported the resident had issues with her heating/thermostat. 
  20. On 13 June 2023, the CEO of the landlord wrote referring to her “recent letters” about her gas heating system. An appointment had been made for 14 June 2023 at 10.30 for a heating engineer to review her heating system, identify any faults and ensure that the system was set on timers to meet her needs. A housing officer would also attend to ensure that the engineer provided a solution that met her needs. It would not be a gas service but a system review. She could also discuss any other concerns. It had allocated a specific housing officer as her single point of contact.
  21. The landlord’s records noted as follows:
    1. On 14 June 2023 noted that the resident was happy with the visits. Her councillor also attended.
    2. On 21 June 2022, following an email from the councillor stating that the resident had reported that “a light on the boiler control panel is coming on when it should not be on”, the landlord phoned the resident. The resident reported that she was distressed and wanted to move to a hotel because of heating issues. The handbook stated that the heating was on. The landlord confirmed this was a “standby light” and the heating would only “kick in” when the property temperature fell under the temperature set on the thermostat.
    3. A job was raised on 18 July 2023 to replace the timeclock. The appointment was changed to 14 August 2023 so that the resident’s preferred operative could attend.
    4. On 14 August 2023, two housing officers and a gas engineer attended. Although it was functioning, the timeclock was replaced for the tenant’s peace of mind. She wanted the heating off but to kick in when it went below 18 degrees. The temperature was set accordingly. The engineer explained that the water was set according to the timer. The green light would illuminate when the hot water was on between those times. The light for the heating would show all the time as it is on standby pending the “thermostat (telling) it to turn on”. The resident appeared satisfied with the explanation.
  22. According to the landlord’s records:
    1. On 15 August 2023, the landlord agreed an external gas company to attend and spoke to them. On the same day, the landlord called the resident following a number of “distressed” voicemails. The heating system “was worse” after the visit. She felt the housing officers who attended did not “give her the chance to speak”. An independent engineer was to visit 17 August 2023.
    2. On 17 August 2023, the resident left a number of voicemails. She reported that she did not want the water working in unison with the heating. She wanted the heating set 6am-6pm. She reported that the engineer advised there was a fault with the system. left messages with the engineer and the resident.
    3. On the same day, the landlord tried seeking a referral to AGE UK, it left voicemail messages for the independent engineer requesting feedback on his visit and left messages with the resident. The landlord has informed this Service that it did not hear back from the engineer.
  23. An internal email of 28 September 2023 noted the landlord had received a letter from the resident reporting a issue with her heating. She declined to speak to the allocated housing officer. That housing officer made internal enquiries and noted that the boiler renewal was due in 2024/25 but it could be replaced sooner. However, a replacement would not resolve the time clock issue as the standby light would always be on. Because the tenant had a hot water tank, the equipment would be similar. An appointment was made for 5 October 2023 with the specific operative (M) of contractor G requested by the resident.
  24. The landlord’s records noted:
    1. On 5 October 2023, M attended and checked all the heating controls which were working as intended. It reset the heating programme to come on at 6pm and go off at 6am. A boiler service was completed.
    2. On 6 October 2023, reported that there was no hot water. She preferred to wait for a specific engineer of the contractor G.
    3. On 19 October 2023, a job was raised to address the boiler making “loud popping/bang noises”. It tried to attend the same day but there was no access. It attended on 25 October 2023.  The boiler kept blowing “fast fuses”. There was water damage on the fan from suspected rainwater. A new boiler would be fitted for which a survey was carried out on the same day.  
    4. On 2 November 2023, the landlord replaced the boiler and thermostat.
    5. On 15 November 2023, the resident reported that the heating was going off and on during the night. On the same day, contractor M checked the controls were working as they should be. It explained to the resident that the heating would turn off when the temperature set on the thermostat was met and would turn off. It would turn back on when the room dropped below the set temperature.

Assessment and findings

  1. It was not disputed that in 2021 the contractor’s communication was unsatisfactory. This caused a delay to the repairs. The landlord acknowledged the service failure and upheld the complaint. It then acted reasonably in raising an emergency repair on 17 December 2021 although the evidence indicates that the repair was not carried out until 6 January 2022.  There was no evidence that the resident asked to escalate the complaint. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is not investigating that complaint but has noted it for context. 
  2. The landlord did not provide this Service with the resident’s complaint it had received on 27 September 2022 however, it was set out in its letter 4 October 2022. There was a dispute as to whether the resident requested to escalate that complaint.
  3. The resident’s complaint of 22 December 2022 and that received on 17 January 2023 concerned the landlord’s contractors attending without notice on 14 December 2022 to check the boiler, the manner in which a member of the landlord’s staff spoke to her on the same day, and that the heating went on after the contractors left. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s decision that this complaint differed to that it had responded to on 4 October 2022 was reasonable. 
  4. There was a delay between the resident’s complaint and its response of 30 January 2023. The landlord should ensure that it adheres to its policy timescales of responding within 10 days or agree an extension if one is necessary.  However, in the meantime, it had spoken to the resident and the resident had written again on 17 January 2023. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that the delay significantly impacted the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints was reasonable: its explanation of the fault following the service was reasonable, as were its offers of resolution set out in its letter 4 May 2023. It sought to reassure her that contractors would not use her bathroom. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding as to whether the resident gave permission to the contractor to use her bathroom at the first visit. It arranged for housing officers to attend with the contractor and to ensure the controls were set as she wished them to be. Its explanation why she had not received notification was reasonable and it offered a resolution to avoid a reoccurrence. It offered to replace the faulty light. It exercised its reasonable discretion and offered to refund the resident for the costs of her local plumber which offer it repeated in its letter 30 April 2023, albeit the payment itself took several weeks (May to July 2023). There was no evidence that if had offered £50 prior to that.
  6. It agreed to consider her request to use a local company of her choice. The request was declined however it addressed the resident’s issues and set out a detailed explanation for its decision. Its explanation why it would not agree to the resident using her own contractor was reasonable. The landlord manages a large number of properties, it was required to ensure that the contractors complied with strict requirements in relation to gas and resident safety and worked across a large number of properties. It nevertheless exercised its reasonable discretion, in August 2023, to agree to a visit by, and to pay for, an independent contractor.
  7. It was also reasonable that the contractor carried out annual gas safety checks as that was a strict statutory requirement, given the importance of gas safety. However, the landlord did not seek to be defensive. It expressed empathy and understanding regarding the manner of the member of staff. It appreciated how this could come across and offered a resolution, namely to deliver training.
  8. The reason for sending a second Stage 1 response on 30 April 2023 is not clear but may have been due to a misunderstanding about the status of the complaints process. It may be helpful if the landlord had a reference numbering system for its complaints to enable residents, and this Service, to distinguish between complaints. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation accordingly. The Ombudsman considered that the offer of £150 for the delays in the complaint handling was reasonable.
  9. It was reasonable that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint and to seek to do so without a referral to a panel while still affording the resident an opportunity to make the referral.
  10. The Ombudsman has considered the events following the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure insofar as they were connected to the resident’s complaint. The evidence showed there were further issues and reports by the resident. The evidence showed they were largely related to the settings of the thermostat rather than a systemic fault. The evidence also showed that the landlord attended to resolve these promptly and when it identified a fault, it promptly replaced the boiler.
  11. The resident expressed frustration at the heating system not functioning at times as she wanted it to, and a lack of trust in the contractors. The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the resident’s distress in particular, given her age. It is also understandable she would not want to use more heating than necessary. However, the Ombudsman considers that there was reasonable redress by the landlord, in that it listened to the resident’s concerns, it offered and carried out resolutions, and offered reasonable compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her boiler and gas safety checks, including the conduct of the landlord’s contractors and staff and the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged any service failures and offered appropriate resolutions in response to the resident’s concerns, reports and complaints.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
    1. The landlord should ensure that residents are aware of its service timescales for repairs.
    2. The landlord should consider adopting a reference system for its complaints.
  2. The landlord is asked to provide feedback in relation to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.