Summary: Mr B says the Council broke his boiler and should fix it. There is no evidence the Council broke the boiler. It might not have fitted a part, but this is not the same as breaking it. The Council has made a reasoned decision that its discretionary service will no longer pay for repairs to Mr B’s boiler as it is no longer economically viable to do so. The Council has offered to loan Mr B money for a new boiler. The Council does not have to provide such assistance to its citizens but chooses to do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council’s contractor broke his boiler around a year ago and now refuse to fix it. Mr B says the contractor did not fit the parts they were supposed to fit. The contractor now says the boiler needs a computer control panel which is not economically viable, so the Council will not repair the boiler. Mr B disagrees the boiler needs a computer control panel, he feels the Council should fit the parts that originally should have been fitted and that should make the boiler work. Mr B says the Council has breached a contract for free repairs to his boiler. Mr B and his elderly mother have been without heat and hot water for around sixteen months now. They have had increased fuel bills from running electric fires, and boiling kettles to wash.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended). In this case a plumbing contractor acted on behalf of the Council.
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council. I considered responses from both parties to a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B and his mother own and live in their own home. They are responsible for the maintenance of their home.
7. The Council has a department that can help vulnerable people to remain living at home. This is a discretionary service.
8. Mr B contacted the Council in March 2018 for help with a faulty boiler; he had not had heat or hot water for two days. The Council had previously helped with repairs to the boiler, the last time in September 2017. Mr B asked the Council to get its contractor to come out and look.
9. Two days later, on the 9th, the contractor visited Mr B; the job sheet says the boiler needs a new printed circuit board. They offered Mr B a portable heater as his heating was not working.
10. The Council approved the proposed works and the part was ordered. Mr B contacted the Council saying the part fitted last week had blown up. Mr B said the contractor had damaged the boiler and the contractor should have sorted the valve out.
11. The contractor attended on the 20th but could not fit the part because there was no power to the boiler. Mr B says the boiler broke all fuses. The notes on the job sheet say the boiler requires a printed circuit board, then further investigation into why the board keeps blowing. The job sheet also has a note from 13 March which says, “boiler requires diverter valve and head as this is the reason the board was taken”.
12. The contractor attended the next day and replaced the printed circuit board and diverter head. The job sheet says the boiler needs a pressure relief valve and expansion vessel.
13. Mr B says during these two visits the contractor did not fit the parts but got him to sign to say they had.
14. The contractor recommended to the Council that it was no longer worth continuing to repair the boiler, and it would be better to fit a new boiler. Mr B’s boiler was around eight years old and was regularly needing parts. Despite the work the contractor had done the boiler needed further parts.
15. The Council has offered to help Mr B get a new boiler by loaning him the money. The Council would place a legal charge on Mr B’s property; it would be repaid if the house is sold within five years. After five years the debt would be written off. Mr B has declined this offer.
16. Mr B complained to the Council that it had ruined his boiler, that they were without heat and hot water for two months, and he didn’t see why he should have to pay for a replacement when it was the Council contractor who broke the boiler. Mr B did not specifically say the contractor did not fit the valve that was needed and that this was the problem, so the Council has not responded to that point.

Was there fault causing injustice?

17. Mr B says the Council damaged his boiler by not sorting out the valve in September 2017 and on 9 March 2018. I am not considering what happened in September 2017; Mr B did not specifically raise that as part of this complaint, and I can see no reason why he did not raise it with the Council sooner. He did not contact the Council about his boiler between September and March. I am therefore focussing on events from March 2018.
18. Mr B wrote to the Council on 18 March 2018 saying the valve broke on 6 March. The contractor came out on the 9th but did not fix the valve, only replaced the control box. Because the valve was not changed the control box blew up again.
19. Mr B says the contractor brought the parts with them but did not fit them. However, I must rely on the job sheets which are written evidence of what happened at the time.
20. Mr B says he has done a plumbing course and was with the contractors while they worked. Mr B says the valve was needed but was never replaced. It appears Mr B might be right, and the contractors never replaced the valve. The job sheet only refers to replacing the valve head. However, the invoice charged for a diverter valve and the notes recognised that both a diverter valve and head were needed. It is possible the contractor did replace the valve but did not note it down properly on the job sheet. As events took place over a year ago it is not possible to now confirm whether the contractor fitted a valve, as other people could have done works to the boiler in the interim.
21. It seems the boiler was working up until 6 March; this prompted Mr B’s contact to the Council. There is no evidence the Council’s contractor broke the boiler and should be responsible for its repair or replacement. The boiler was already faulty when Mr B approached the Council for help.
22. Mr B says the Council has not complied with its contract as it promised free repair of his boiler. The Council’s discretionary service is a credit to it, to assist homeowners even though it has no statutory duty to do so. The Council has helped Mr B over the years by paying for repairs to his boiler. The Council has also offered to loan him money to buy a new boiler. The Council will not continue to repair the boiler for free, as a qualified professional has advised it is not economically viable to do so.
23. The Council has taken advice from a registered plumbing professional in deciding to no longer continue to pay for repairs to Mr B’s boiler. There is no fault in the Council’s actions in relying on a professional judgement. I recognise Mr B’s concerns because the plumbing professional may not have fitted a part that was needed, however that does not make the Council’s decision wrong that it is no longer worth repairing the boiler. Mr B is a private homeowner, it is his boiler, and if he prefers to repair the boiler than to get a replacement he can do so without the help of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council made a reasoned decision to no longer continue to pay for repairs to Mr B’s boiler. There is no evidence the Council’s contractor broke the boiler.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman