Summary: The Council’s communication with Ms A about her broken boiler was not in line with accepted standards and this was fault which caused avoidable frustration. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise within one month of my decision. There was not an unreasonable delay in fixing and replacing the boiler and the Council offered Ms A alternative housing in any event.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains Westminster City Council (the Council) did not repair her heating and hot water and failed to offer her alternative housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Ms A’s complaint to us, the Council’s responses to her complaint and information from the Council in response to my enquiries. Both parties received a draft of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

5. The Council follows its placement policy when it offers temporary housing. It carries out an assessment to ensure the housing is suitable for the household. In terms of property size, applicants are offered the number of bedrooms required to meet needs as set out in the housing allocations policy. This says that children of the same sex under 18 are expected to share a bedroom.

What happened

6. The Council placed Ms A and her family in temporary accommodation, a three-bedroom property, managed by an agent and owned by a private landlord. Mrs A has two daughters, aged 17 and 18.
7. The managing agent told the Council Ms A first reported a problem with her heating and hot water on 2 November 2018 and a maintenance man attended and found a blockage in the heat exchanger.
8. On 8 November, Ms A told the Council she had no heating or hot water. Officers emailed the managing agent. The following day, Ms A reported she was still without heating or hot water. Ms A advised she had contacted the managing agent several times previously. Officers sent the managing agent another email.
9. On 12 November, Ms A contacted the Council. She said an engineer had visited and told her he could not fix the boiler as it was too far gone and the parts would be too expensive.
10. On 13 November, Ms A told the Council she was still without heating or hot water. An officer phoned the managing agent who said an engineer would visit the same day. The Council’s case notes show an officer spoke to Mrs A on 13 November and offered Ms A three properties in the same area she was in. The officer noted Mrs A declined the properties, which had two bedrooms.
11. On 14 November, the managing agent told the Council the boiler needed a lot of repair work; parts had been ordered and would take two to three days to arrive and Ms A was made aware of this.
12. An engineer fitted a new pump to the boiler and flushed the system on 16 November.
13. On 23 November, Ms A reported she was still without heating and hot water. The managing agent got quotes for a new boiler and this was installed on 26 November. New radiators were put in the following day.
14. Ms A complained to the Council. It did not uphold her complaint.
15. The Council told me:
• It accepted officers did not respond to Ms A in a timely manner or keep her updated and it had addressed this with the people concerned as a training issue
• It offered Ms A three two-bedroom properties, all of which were within reasonable travelling distance of her daughters’ schools and so were suitable
• The work was completed as soon as possible.

Was there fault?

16. The Council accepts it did not update Ms A about the boiler repair as it should have done. This was fault and caused her avoidable frustration.
17. I do not consider there were unreasonable delays in dealing with Ms A’s boiler. I accept Ms A was without heating and hot water for several weeks, but this does not mean there was fault. I have taken into account that;
• Ms A first reported the repair on 2 November to the managing agent. An engineer visited on 9 November. This was within one week;
• When the problem was not fixed, on 13 November, the Council offered Ms A a move to another property, which had two bedrooms. This was in line with its allocations policy as Ms A’s daughters can share a bedroom. Ms A chose not to move. Had she moved, this would have resolved the problem for her;
• Parts were ordered on 11 November and fitted on 16 November. It was not within the control of the Council, the managing agent or the landlord as to how long the parts would take to come. It was not within anyone’s control that the new parts did not resolve the problem;
• The issue was still not resolved; Ms A reported this on 23 November and a new boiler was fitted within 3 days. This was within an acceptable timeframe.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Council’s communication with Ms A about her broken boiler was not in line with accepted standards and this was fault which caused avoidable frustration. There was not an unreasonable delay in fixing and replacing the boiler and the Council offered Ms A alternative housing. To remedy the Council will apologise within one month of my decision.
19. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman