Clarion Housing Association Limited (202301476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301476

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 October 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 landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of a gas leak.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. Knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house owned by the landlord, a housing association. She has a sole assured tenancy that began in May 2004.
The landlord conducted an annual gas safety inspection on 22 September 2021. Its record noted supplying and fitting a carbon monoxide detector.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her family. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Summary of events

On 14 September 2022 the landlord completed a gas safety check at the resident’s home. The discussion between the resident and the operative is disputed. The resident said she raised a smell of gas to the operative, who then checked outside and reported the presence of a ‘slow’ leak, within ‘acceptable levels’. The landlord’s record of the visit is contained within the standard form gas safety record. It logged the level readings taken, that gas appliances were working and no defects identified. It recorded one carbon monoxide detector present and working.
On or around 21 October 2022, the gas supply to the property was capped off by the gas company. This followed an alert by another local resident of a gas smell. The gas company required emergency access. On testing inside, it discovered unsafe levels of gas. The resident recalls being advised the leak was likely ongoing for some time and liable to cause an explosion.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord attended the property and competed a survey of works necessary to resolve what its records subsequently described as a gas leak below floor. It noted to order new pipes and erect scaffolding. The resident advised that she raised concern with the landlord about the adequacy of the prior gas check and its completed safety record. She said the landlord apologised, acknowledged she did not have any carbon monoxide detector/s and provided 2 detectors immediately.
On 28 October 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord online. She raised dissatisfaction about:
1. Advice provided to her on 14 September 2022 about safety when days later the property was found to have explosive levels of gas.
2. Inaccurate completion of the gas safety record: it gave a false response about carbon monoxide detectors.
3. Personal impact of the leak.
4. Ongoing delay to restore her gas supply.
On 2 November 222 the landlord completed works to the gas supply from the meter up the front of the house. The landlord’s records refer to the laying of a new gas line and supply being restored. The resident advised that the operatives located a lose connection within the pipes in the ground and fixed it.
On 29 November 2022 the resident submitted an online review about the landlord, detailing her experience of the gas leak. This mirrored concerns raised by her complaint and highlighted risk to her safety. She also raised lack of response to her complaint. The landlord replied to her on the same website that date. It acknowledged her concerns and offered to look into her case.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord forwarded the resident’s review internally and flagged her complaint as outstanding. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident and updated that its customer solution team was handling her complaint.
On 2 December 2022 the landlord emailed to the resident a stage 1 response to her complaint. The landlord said the following:
1. It was sorry for its delay responding to her complaint and offered £50 compensation.
2. It had investigated and found no evidence of a gas leak prior to 24 October 2022. It had surveyed the works required and on 2 November 2022 completed the new gas supply.
3. It acknowledged completing works to restore her gas services outside of its service level agreement for heating and hot water. It offered £20 compensation.
On 30 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request escalation of her concerns to stage 2 of its complaint process. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s first response for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had failed to acknowledge that a gas leak was detected on 14 September 2022.
2. Its findings did not reflect her account of the advice relayed to her by the operative at the gas check or at the landlord’s attendance on 24 October 2022.
3. The experience had been very distressing and frightening for her family.
On 30 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a review of her complaint. It said it would contact her within 20 working days.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. The landlord’s note of the call recorded:
1. The resident’s account of the gas safety check, leak emergency and subsequent attendances to restore gas services to her home.
2. Its verbal apology in response. It acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was ‘not good enough’ due to the level of investigation into her account and failure to interrogate the information supplied by its internal services.
3. It provided advice about the final complaint stage. It advised its aim to respond in 20 working days.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord’s property services provided information to support its complaint investigation:
1. It summarised an interviewed held with the operative that completed the gas check.
2. The resident did have a carbon monoxide detector from its records.
3. The new gas supply was likely installed by the gas provider.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response by email. Its response said that:
1. The attending engineer on 14 September 2022 did not detect a leak. The levels referred to related to acceptable readings from the gas meter; it was not a reading of a live leak. It was not in any event able to test from the mains to the meter. It had followed correct procedures on the day.
2. It did not find any failure in service regarding its handling of the gas check/ escape.
3. It was sorry for the delay to its complaint response; this was due to higher customer contact than expected.
4. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response could have included more information in the circumstances and its explanation about the works to the supply improved. It offered £50 discretionary compensation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed the Ombudsman about the landlord’s actions impacted her health and while the resident’s comments are acknowledged, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions reported.
Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord was required by operation of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to manage risks presenting from gas appliances (including installation pipework) by maintaining all gas appliances in a safe condition and the completion of an annual safety check. The landlord was responsible for taking reasonable steps to deal with a risk of death from gas.
The landlord’s gas safety management policy stated that where it was notified of a potential gas escape, it would capture and record details via its accident/ incident reporting process and liaise as required with the relevant gas conveyor to investigate. It referred inspection and investigation of reported gas incidents to an independent contractor to ensure impartiality in relation to any works that may have recently been completed on its behalf.
The landlord had a repairs and maintenance policy that gave standard timescales for its response to reported repairs. In response to emergencies, it would attend within 24 hours to make safe. Further or non-emergency repairs were to be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s then complaints policy set out a 2 stage procedure:
1. At stage 1, it would respond to the complaint in 20 working days.
2. At stage 2, it would complete a peer review and respond within 40 working days.
The landlord’s policy contained its promise to address all points raised by a complaint, with clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord had a compensation policy that detailed how it would assess appropriate offers of financial redress where it had failed to meet service standards.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as then in force set out requirements that the landlord:
1. Provided its stage 1 response in 10 working days and stage 2 reply in 20 working days. Extensions were to be applied only where it had good reason and provided reasons for its delay to the resident.
2. Kept the resident regularly updated about the progress of its complaint investigation even if it had no new substantive information to provide.
3. Addressed all points raised by a complaint with clear reasons for any decisions.

The landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection

The sole record made by the landlord’s contractor of the gas safety inspection was a standard gas safety record form. This did not record the content of any discussion between the operative and the resident, including any advice or explanation that may have been provided.
The resident’s complaint outlined advice she said was provided by the attending operative. The landlord denied this account. This Service is unable to establish the facts of the visit. The landlord’s failure to create a contemporaneous record of its conversation cannot reasonably draw a conclusion that its subsequent account was inaccurate. This does not mean that this Service makes any findings regarding the resident’s account. This Service is unable to make a determination either way about this element of the landlord’s handling (advice given at the visit) due to the limitations of records maintained.
The gas safety record noted findings of the operative on 14 September 2022; the gas appliances were in working order and no defects identified. It made no record of any smell of gas or confirmed or potential leak.
The proximity of a confirmed gas escape a few weeks after this attendance reasonably gives cause for concern as to whether the issue was detectable at the visit. However, no evidence has been produced for or discoverable by this investigation that reasonably establishes that the gas operative came into contact with the particular issue subject of the leak, that a leak was ongoing at that time or should reasonably have been detected then.
The resident raised concern about the accuracy of the gas safety record linked to its finding that a carbon monoxide detector was present. This Service is unable to establish with certainty the presence or otherwise of a detector at the point of the visit. However, the landlord’s prior records are consistent with the landlord’s finding. There is evidence a detector was supplied and fitted by the landlord in September 2021. We are unable to reasonably draw a conclusion as to the lack of detector and the related doubt about the accuracy of the safety record based on the resident’s account alone.
The resident said that her concerns about the adequacy of the safety check were first raised in person to the landlord at its survey of 24 October 2022 and that the landlord acknowledged failing. The landlord has failed to produce a record of any conversation that may have taken place with the resident on this date. This Service has considered and given weight to the resident’s account of this contact. We have also assessed the landlord’s gas safety record and subsequent operative interview summary. This Service is unable to make any finding as to what was discussed in the absence of other contemporaneous evidence nor are we able to reasonably establish whether admissions were made on this date, contrary to the landlord’s records.
The landlord’s final complaint response provided explanation about the scope of its testing on the date of the gas inspection that may have proven useful if supplied at an earlier stage.
The proximity in time of the gas leak to the inspection reasonably raises reservations as to the inspection only some weeks prior. However, this timing alone is insufficient evidence that a leak was reasonably detectable at that moment. The resident’s account of advice provided by the landlord across 2 visits is contradicted by the landlord’s account. The detector finding raised by the resident as evidence of inaccuracy is supported by the landlord’s prior records. There is no other surrounding evidence supplied by the parties that provides a wider understanding. Having reviewed the relevant evidence available, this service has found no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the gas safety inspection.

The landlord’s response to reports of a gas leak

The limitations of the records made available by the landlord are considered separately below in this report. The lack of full records impacted assessment of the landlord’s response. While it is clear that the landlord became aware of the gas leak over the weekend of 22 to 23 October 2022 by its contractor’s attendance on 24 October 2022, it is not apparent how. There are no attendance notes/ inspection notes arising from the attendances on 24 October and 2 November 2022.
The landlord’s attendance on 24 October 2022 was rightly treated as an emergency in line with its repairs and maintenance policy considering the nature of the issue. The gas remained capped pending the further works assessed. The identified cause of the leak is not entirely clear from records. There is no record of the survey completed on that date. It is however evident that the landlord accepted some responsibility for the remedial works, acknowledged further by its complaint response that admitted delays to its completion.
This acknowledged delay meant that the resident was without access to gas and therefore hot water and heating for a further 9 days. The landlord accepted this was outside of its service timescales. Review of the landlord’s planned works shows it had identified the need for scaffolding, although it is unclear if this was subsequently necessary. It was reasonable that liaison to book and erect scaffolding would add to the time required. In those circumstances, its apology and offer of compensation were a reasonable response to acknowledge the time it took to complete works.
The landlord’s gas safety management policy does not clearly detail what the threshold is in relation to when further investigation works are required when a gas leak has been identified. The policy simply states, ‘when the landlord is notified of a potential gas escape… details will be captured via its Accident/Incident reporting’, therefore it would be reasonable for a service user, or other party, to interpret that as any reports of a gas leak/escape should be recorded as an accident/incident. As such, a recommendation has been made to review the current wording within the policy.
The policy further states that the landlord will employ an independent contractor to undertake inspections and investigations following a reported gas incident to ensure impartiality in relation to any works that may have recently been completed. However, given that an LGSR is primarily a visual inspection of the boiler and other gas appliances and therefore, would not have tested the pipes located within the concrete flooring, where the gas leak was subsequently located a number of weeks later, this action was not necessary.
It would have been beneficial for the landlord to take steps to discuss this with the resident at the time, which may have alleviated any anxiety she was experiencing as a result of the located gas leak.
As the landlord did not communicate with the resident, it failed to consider the impact on the resident and her family following the gas leak which resulted in her being without gas and hot water for a number of days in the colder months. The landlord also acknowledged that it failed to provide the resident with temporary heating and offered £20 within its stage 1 complaint response in an attempt to put things right.
The landlord’s offer of £20 was in line with its own compensation policy, which states that it will pay £5 per day, after 7 days for no heating and £5 per day, after 7 days for no hot water.
While the £20 may have been inline with the landlord’s policy, it would have been reasonable for a discretionary payment to be offered in recognition of the time of year and the failure to offer temporary heating. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award discretionary payments of between £50 and £200 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.
In light of this information, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which states that where there has been a failure over a short duration, payments between £50 – £100 are recommended.
In conclusion, based on the information provided, the landlord failed to provide the resident with temporary heating within the colder months, and therefore a finding of Service Failure has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

By the landlord’s own admission at stage 2 of its complaint process, its stage 1 investigation and response to the resident were subject to failings. It failed to reasonably investigate the relevant series of events and address her concerns directly. Its complaint handling was out of compliance with the practice expected by the Code. It failed to show it was listening to the resident and outlined a position that omitted important detail, causing the resident distress. The landlord appropriately identified and offered redress proportionate to these particular and acknowledged failings.
However, the landlord did not identify, reflect upon or provide any form of remedy for the failings in its engagement with the resident at stage 1. It was required by the Code to keep the resident regularly updated but failed to even acknowledge her complaint until after she made a public review of her safety concerns over a month later. Although the landlord swiftly acknowledged her online review and assured her it would respond ‘soon’, it failed to act accordingly. The landlord’s poor engagement on the complaint at stage 1 caused the resident’s distress, time and trouble.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided to the resident 25 working days after it was received. This was outside of its interim complaints policy timescale of 20 working days. There is no reason for the delay apparent from its records. The matter was not complex and involved only a small series of events, easily discoverable from reasonably maintained records. Considering the nature of concerns raised by the complaint, it is of concern that there was no evidence of the landlord seeking to ensure the safety issues raised were explored swiftly.. The landlord by its stage 1 response did however apologise for this delay and provide an appropriate level of compensation of £20 in line with its compensation policy to address the delay.
The landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2 of its complaint process was significantly improved. In addition to improved engagement, it showed timely self-reflection and an immediate effort to offer redress within its first call to the resident. It showed a clear willingness to seek to put matters right. Its response provided an improved level of transparency and explanation to support understanding of its position. However, these improved efforts could not alone redress the failures in its prior engagement; this was not directly addressed.
It is noted that the landlord’s then policy provided timescales for response out of compliance with the substantially shorter Code requirements. However, this Service recognises that the landlord was operating an interim policy in reaction to the impact arising from a cyber attack in 2022. The landlord has since reverted to a complaints policy that complies with Code timescales. No complaint handling failing is according found in relation to its policy timescales.
This service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is owing to its communication failings at stage 1 that it failed to acknowledge or redress.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information…’’The failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to in adequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment [and] contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety [vulnerabilities] may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained. The documentation provided was limited and indicate failures in effective record keeping practices.
There was no retained record of key conversations held between the resident and attending contractors on important matters of gas safety on 14 September 2022 and 24 October 2022. Its correspondence referred to a survey being completed of works necessary in response to a serious gas escape, however there is no copy of the survey, inspection report/ attendance notes. There is no contemporaneous record of works completed to remedy the gas leak on 2 November 2022.
The scant details of the key dates and events are contained largely within internal correspondence and in non-contemporaneous and second hand summaries provided for the benefit of the complaint investigation. These do not provide the level of detail reasonably expected to be recorded and readily accessible when dealing with an issue carrying potential safety risks.
The landlord’s approach to information recording adversely impacted this Service’s ability to more thoroughly assess the resident’s complaint. It was unable to demonstrate in detail how it responded to the presenting situation. The landlord’s internal correspondence also suggests some inconsistency of understanding as to the works completed on 2 November 2022. This is reasonably likely to be connected to the lack of appropriate record of the attendance.
There are evident risks presenting from incomplete records on matters of gas safety management. It is reasonable to anticipate that the landlord’s records relating to gas leaks, repairs and any contact regarding potential risks would be maintained with its highest level of accuracy and detail. That the landlord failed to keep or maintain reasonable records on an matter with health and safety implications is a serious failing.
This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a gas leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.

In order to demonstrate compliance with the order in this case the apology should comply with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance and must:

Be personal and specific to the resident and case.
Express empathy.
Acknowledge the failures in the case and the impact on the resident.
Take responsibility for the failings identified and express sincere regret.

Pay the resident £150 compensation. It is comprised of:
1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its response to reports of a gas leak.
2. £50 for the distress, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

In addition to pay the resident the total sum of £120 previously offered by its correspondence of 2 December 2022 and 27 January 2023 unless this has already been paid.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman conducted a special investigation into the landlord that considered its handling of other complaints in 2022. The investigation report identified patterns of failings similar to the complaint handling and record keeping issues found in this case. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with an improvement plan in line with recommendations and its progress against promised actions was monitored. Considering the time now passed since this complaint and the subsequent improvement plan, the Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate actions already required in response to the special investigation.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review its wording within its gas safety management policy, relating to point 1.9.