Together Housing Association Limited (202017288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017288

Together Housing Association Limited

29 October 2021

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the sounding of the carbon monoxide alarm.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant, and the tenancy began on the 24 October 2016. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached house.
3. The resident has three children.
4. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord ’to keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property that provide … gas …. and any hard-wired smoke alarm the Association provides’.
5. One of the principle aims of the landlord’s repair policy is to ensure that residents can easily report repairs and that it provides an emergency repair service outside of normal office hours.
6. The landlord’s repair policy has three repair priorities with priority one defined as ’a repair that requires making safe …. where there is immediate risk to life …. or a danger risk to property’. These will be responded to within 24 hours.
7. According to the landlords’ carbon monoxide procedure, the following actions are taken on the receipt of a report of the carbon monoxide alarm sounding:

1. the resident is provided with safety information and advised to update the landlord once the gas distribution network (emergency gas contractor) responsible for the management of carbon monoxide reports, has attended;
2. the landlord will contact the emergency gas contractor and a Priority 1 (P1) repair will be raised and a message sent to the gas planner;
3. after an hour, the landlord should contact the resident to see if the situation has been resolved;
4. if the resident makes contact, the call should be transferred to the gas planner
5. the landlord should use the P1 repair for a gas technician to attend to carry out a gas safety check and recommission and;
6. if the report occurs out of working hours the landlord will arrange to visit the resident the next working day.

8. Additional guidance is provided in the landlord’s gas procedure that ’a possible outcome can be …. gas team will attend to uncap the gas supply at the meter, re-commission, test appliances …. supported with a CO detector(s)’. 

The guidance continues ‘… the majority of gas cookers installed in our properties are customers own responsibility.  At this point the gas cooker would be disconnected, capped off from the gas supply, and the customer informed that they need to get their own Gas Safe Registered Installer to carry out the relevant safety checks/tests in re-connecting the gas cooker’.

9. At the start of the landlord’s complaint procedure, it is required to identify complaints that can resolved at its ‘getting it sorted ‘stage within five working days. Formal complaints are resolved at stage one in 10 working days and at stage two in 15 working days.
10. The compensation policy sets out that the landlord should recognise the impact on residents if its service level drops below the agreed service standard and that it aims to be fair to any customer who incurs financial loss or inconvenience due to a repeated service failure.
11. The complaint was made by the resident’s partner and any correspondence received from him will be referred to within this report as being from ‘the resident’.

Summary of Events

12.  The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 8 January 2021, to report the alarm sounding from the carbon monoxide detector. During the telephone conversation, the resident was advised that the emergency gas contractor would be contacted and once they attended, the resident should call back with an update.
13. The landlord contacted the emergency gas contractor and they responded to the report. The resident’s gas supply was disconnected that day.
14. Whilst the emergency gas contractor was at the property, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to advise the gas supply had been disconnected. The landlord advised the resident to remain at home and someone would attend.
15. The resident contacted the landlord the following day to advise that no one had attended. The landlord arranged for temporary heating to be supplied that day after the resident’s contact.
16. On 11 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and he was asked the required health and safety questions in line with the carbon monoxide procedure such as, had he or any of the members of his family experienced any symptoms such as dizziness or headaches and if anyone had undertaken a blood test or received medical attention.

The landlord arranged for the gas supply and the boiler to be recommissioned that day.

17. On 11 January 2021 the resident submitted a complaint as:

a.     he had followed their advice when informing them the gas supply had been disconnected

b.     he had to wait for more than 24 hours before action was taken

c.      he was told the gas supply would not be uncapped over the weekend and he would have to wait until 11 January 2021 for the reconnection

d.     he explained he had three children under five years old living at the property, a wife who was unwell, and they had spent three days without central heating, hot water and hot food.

18. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 January 2021 at their ‘get it sorted’ stage of the complaint procedure. The landlord concluded:

a.     that the emergency gas contractor had responded to the carbon monoxide alarm but it disagreed that the resident had made contact after they had attended as they requested

b.     therefore, the landlord was not aware that the gas had been capped that day and once they were aware, temporary heating was supplied

c.      it would reconnect the resident’s gas cooker if a new one had been purchased.

19. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated their complaint on 22 February 2021 explaining:

a.     the complaint response did not provide an outcome

b.     he had to pay £60 for the reconnection of the gas cooker

c.      compensation had not been considered

d.     the landlord had not given proper consideration to the age of his children, the temperature over the weekend and that the landlord had not followed their own policy.

20. The landlord issued a stage one response on 4 March 2021. It accepted:

a.     there was a service failure as they had reviewed his second phone call on 8 January 2021 and during the call the resident was incorrectly advised that an emergency appointment had already been raised for the boiler and someone would attend that day

b.     alternative heating was not supplied to the resident within 24 hours once the landlord was aware the gas supply was disconnected and it apologised for the error in the initial response

c.      £80 compensation was warranted as the resident had to pay £60 for the reconnection of the cooker and £20 for the inconvenience.

21. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 5 March 2021 as he felt his concerns about the emergency gas contractor call out was not fully addressed and he did not agree with the compensation offer of £80. He requested the equivalent of six months’ rent in compensation.
22. The landlord’s final response has an incomplete date of March 2021, so it is not clear when the complaint response was completed and was sent to the resident.  It concluded that:

a.     the initial response was factually incorrect as the resident had contacted the landlord once the gas supply had been disconnected

b.     the stage one response had apologised for this error

c.      the resident had to pay for the reconnection of the cooker because it was disconnected following the visit by the emergency gas contractor, and it could not apologise for this

d.     the offer of £80 compensation for the reconnection costs and for the inconvenience experienced by the family over the weekend was a reasonable offer and remained open to the resident.

23. The resident approached this Service to escalate his complaint on 29 March 2021. He explained the landlord’s complaint response was inadequate as it did not reflect the impact on his family and the compensation offer did not reflect the circumstances.
24. This Service attempted mediation but this did not lead to an agreed settlement. The landlord gave further consideration to the resident’s circumstances and increased its compensation offer to £150. The resident rejected the offer requesting the equivalent of six months’ rent in compensation for the landlord’s failings.

Assessment and findings

25. In reaching a decision 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 complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
26. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

• Be fair
• Put things right
• Learn from outcomes

27. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
28. The resident reported his carbon monoxide alarm sounding on 8 January 2021. The emergency gas contractor attended the day of the report and disconnected the gas supply. They supplied a report to the landlord confirming their attendance and that they carried out safety checks and the disconnection of the gas supply at the meter. The report did not give the reasons for the carbon monoxide alarm sounding and this Service has seen no evidence to confirm the reason for this.  The landlord’s initial action to alert the emergency gas contractor to the alarm was in accordance with its carbon monoxide procedure and therefore appropriate.
29. Once the gas supply was disconnected, the landlord was responsible for recommissioning the gas supply to the property. The gas procedures say the landlord is responsible for reconnecting the boiler and the resident responsible for the connection of their own cooker. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it should attend to Priority 1 repairs within 24 hours. It is not disputed that the landlord did not attend within the time outlined within its repairs polices, however, the actions taken by the emergency gas contractor addressed the immediate health and safety risks on 8 January 2021.
30. The carbon monoxide procedure says that if the resident contacts the landlord once the emergency gas contractor has attended, the call should be handled by the gas planners and alternative heating offered.  The landlord accepts the correct process was not followed when the resident advised the emergency gas contractor had disconnected the gas supply.  By the time the alternative heating was organised by the landlord on 9 January 2021 this was more than 24 hours after the resident had notified the landlord that his gas supply had been disconnected.
31. Although the initial ‘get it sorted’ response was inaccurate, the landlord has demonstrated in its subsequent complaint responses that it has acknowledged and accepted its service failure in its handling of this matter for which it apologised, indicated it would improve its service (by training staff and reviewing procedures) and offered £80 compensation. The compensation award was categorized as £60 for the reconnection of the cooker and £20 to reflect the inconvenience to the family.
32. Although the landlord was not responsible for the costs of re-connecting the resident’s cooker, it demonstrated it was resolution-focused by making a good will gesture award for this.
33. The landlord identified the service failings that took place and the impact of these on the resident and his family. As part of the mediation process, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £150.00, acknowledging the miscommunication and the impact on the family over the weekend. This amount is in line with the range recommended by the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as appropriate for ‘service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant’. This level of compensation, in combination with the apologies and assurances that lessons would be learned, was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 55 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

35. The landlord has acknowledged there was a service failure in its handling of its communication with the resident when he contacted them after the gas supply to his property was disconnected. However, the landlord has apologised for the service failures and its increased compensation offer of £150 was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

36. The landlord to reoffer the compensation amount of £150.00 to the resident and let this service know once it has done this.
37. The landlord to ensure it has procedures in place, so its complaint responses are accurate and dated.
38. The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.