Clarion Housing Association Limited (202123561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123561

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 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

The complaint is about:
1. The information provided by the landlord when the property was offered and whether there was a supply of gas to the property.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns about gas safety and its handling of reports of a gas leak in the building.
3. The landlord’s handling of a temporary decant.
4. The landlord’s response to a request for a management transfer.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the first-floor studio flat since 25 November 2013.
The resident first contacted the landlord with his concerns via a complaint on 25 February 2022. The resident’s complaint was in relation to disrepair and lack of suitable maintenance that led to health and safety concerns. He stated:
1. When he moved into the flat, he was told it was all electric with no gas services in the flat.
2. In December 2021, the fire brigade broke into this flat after a report of a smell of gas. An eroded gas pipe found in his property had caused a gas leak.
3. All residents were evacuated until the leak was made safe. The fire brigade paid for the residents to stay in alternative accommodation for one night.
4. He was disappointed that it took a leak to identify there was a gas service in his flat that was never mentioned previously.
5. Suitable checks had never been carried out, or to a standard which highlighted a gas pipe in the property. The resident felt these checks should be carried out by the landlord.
6. The incident was highly traumatic for him and his family. He was disappointed in the level of due care to his safety which he said was lacking.
7. As a resolution, he asked for compensation and a move to a more suitable property.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 11 and 14 March 2022 to confirm its understanding of the complaint. On both occasions, a voicemail was left. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 11 March 2022.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord called the resident to provide its stage 1 complaint response. While summarising the outcome of the investigation, the landlord told the resident he could submit a formal transfer request if he wished to continue with it. If the request was rejected, he could appeal the decision, but this fell outside of the complaint process. The landlord confirmed:
1. It had contacted the resident on 7 December 2021 regarding a possible decant. The resident confirmed it was not needed as he had returned to the property. The fire brigade had carried out checks and the gas had been capped to prevent any further leaks. It was deemed safe to return home.
2. The property was not included in the gas contract as the landlord was not aware of a gas supply to the property.
3. The gas pipes belonged to the Southern Gas Network (SGN) and the landlord was not responsible for the maintenance.
4. The resident should contact SGN with his concerns regarding the maintenance and follow on works required.
5. There is no record of the resident being told the flat was electric, however as the landlord was not aware of a gas supply to the flat, this information would have been correct at the time it was given.
6. The resident did not meet the criteria for a management move, i.e. there was no immediate threat to life and no fear of life due to antisocial behaviour (ASB). The request was denied.
7. The landlord did not find any service failure and did not uphold the complaint.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response and on 15 April 2022, he asked for the complaint to be escalated. He said the response was insufficient and did not offer a suitable remedy. No additional evidence or information was submitted by the resident.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation on 13 May 2022. It advised it would respond by 14 June 2022.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord commissioned an external independent auditor to complete an inspection of the flat. The report, received by the Ombudsman as evidence, confirmed it was all electric but had a gas supply passing through the property. The supply was in the airing cupboard behind a soil stack and was severely corroded. SGN attended and capped the gas supply and in January 2022, a new external gas supply was fitted. This rendered the gas supply in the flat redundant. No further work was required for the gas supply and the report confirmed the situation was safe.
The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 1 June 2022. The response confirmed the following:
1. The stage 1 response was a fair, reasonable and accurate account which gave the correct information confirming the landlord’s position.
2. There was no service failure from the landlord in respect of the gas leak. It was not responsible for the gas pipe to the building, or the maintenance of the pipes.
3. SGN had confirmed the gas leak came from the main riser which fed the block and was not located in the resident’s flat. SGN stated no gas pipe had been found in the resident’s flat and they had completed the necessary remedial work.
4. The landlord did not put the resident or his family at risk as it was confirmed there was no gas supply to the resident’s flat.
5. The landlord had contacted the resident regrading a decant but he said the gas had been capped and the fire brigade confirmed residents could return home.
6. SGN compensated residents for loss of heating, hot water and costs incurred from decanting residents to the hotel, including expenses.
7. The management transfer request had been assessed correctly and the resident did not meet the criteria.
8. It had arranged for the auditor to inspect the flat.
9. It awarded £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 14 June 2022. He said he did not think the offer of remedy was suitable or acceptable. He stated he wanted compensation and a move to another property.

Assessment and findings

As part of the investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide information relating to the issues raised by the resident. The evidence provided helps the Ombudsman in determining if the landlord has responded appropriately and in accordance with its policies, procedures, responsibilities, and obligations.

Information provided when the property was offered.

The landlord advised through the complaints process that due to the time that had passed since the resident moved into the property, it was not able to find a record of him being told the property was electric with no gas supply. It did however state as there was no live supply of gas to the flat, this would not have been discussed during the viewing or sign-up.
Given the lack of evidence and the time that has passed, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on exactly what the resident was advised of prior to moving to the property. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable of the landlord not to mention a gas supply to the resident during the offer, viewing or sign-up process. The flat was not included in the landlord’s gas contract. There was no record of any gas maintenance records, no gas servicing certificates and no sign of any gas appliances in the flat. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord conducted appropriate investigations into its own records when considering the resident’s concerns through the complaints process.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration in relation to the information provided by the landlord when the property was offered.

Concerns about gas safety and handling of reports of a gas leak.

The landlord confirmed there was no service failure in respect of the gas leak. It explained that the gas pipes and maintenance of such were not its responsibility. The pipes belonged to SGN and so the maintenance and upkeep were with the gas network. It was confirmed that SGN acted in line with its procedure for responding to reports of smells of gas. SGN confirmed the leak came from the main riser which fed the block. The evidence shows that the leak was not coming from the resident’s flat.
SGN took full responsibility for responding to the leak and completing the necessary remedial work afterwards. They apparently paid compensation to residents which included decanting into a hotel whilst the area was made safe. As the pipes did not belong to the landlord, it would not have been authorised to undertake any inspection or work on the pipes, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to SGN with any concerns regarding maintenance and follow-on work.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to concerns of gas safety, and handling of the gas leak. It was reasonable of the landlord to confirm the ownership and responsibility of the gas pipes and supply, and it was appropriate to signpost the resident to SGN with his concerns.
Further, to offer the resident assurance that his concerns regarding the safety had been heard, the landlord requested an inspection of the property by an external independent auditor who confirmed the property was safe.

Handling of temporary decant

The landlord confirmed it spoke to the resident on 7 December 2021 regarding a temporary decant to another property. The resident told the landlord the decant was not needed as he had returned to the property. He had stayed in a hotel for one night which had been arranged and paid for by SGN.
SGN had arranged the decant due to the leak while the area was made safe. While the landlord was not responsible, it contacted the resident to discuss a decant. In the Ombudsman opinion, the landlord acted reasonably in the situation and as a result no maladministration is found.

Request for management transfer

The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out the circumstances in which a transfer could be considered. The reasons for the request from the resident did not fall under the criteria for a move, and this was explained to the resident in the complaint responses.
The landlord informed the resident that he could submit a formal request for a managed move outside of the complaint process. It also explained there was a review process he could follow if he remained dissatisfied.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request for a management transfer. It explained clearly why the resident did not meet the criteria, and its decision was appropriate and in line with its management transfer policy. While it suggested the resident could submit a formal request, it does not appear the resident followed through with this. It would therefore still be appropriate for the landlord to accept a formal request from the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the information provided by the landlord when the property was offered and whether there was a supply of gas to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to concerns about gas safety and its handling of reports of a gas leak in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a temporary decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a request for a management transfer.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should provide the resident with the necessary information and guidance on how he can submit a formal request for a management move.