Broadland Housing Association Limited (202315191)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315191

Broadland Housing Association Limited

11 July 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns:
1. That a gas hob had been installed incorrectly.
2. That its staff member had advised that the hob was safe.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident moved into the property by a mutual exchange in October 2020. The property is a 2-bedroom semidetached house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 23 May 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said a surveyor had visited on 11 May 2023. During the inspection, the resident asked the surveyor about the wires that went into the cooker through the draws. She was advised by the surveyor that they were safe. The next day she smelt gas and called the gas emergency line to report it.
An engineer attended and she was then informed that there was a gas leak. The gas was capped off, and the cooker was condemned. She was told that the wiring to the cooker was incorrect and unsafe. She did not understand why the landlord’s surveyor had told her it was safe the day before when it was not. She wanted the whole kitchen taken out and a new one put in that was safe.
The landlord responded. It said that when the resident mutually exchanged into the property, she signed a disclaimer to take responsibility for the non-standard kitchen which included the hob. At the point of the mutual exchange the landlord completed a gas check and an electrical installation condition report. It said that neither reports would have necessarily identified the issues recently uncovered. This was because the wiring in question was either hidden or under the hob. It was also unknown whether the wiring had been amended after the resident had moved in.
It said that it did not uphold the complaint but recognised she did not have use of a cooker now. It agreed to pay up to £250 for a replacement gas hob. It also agreed to fit a new kitchen earlier than required as a good will gesture. It also offered £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. It said the resident had experienced a gas leak which would have caused distress as well as having no cooking facilities.
The resident remained dissatisfied as she considered the surveyor had seen the issues the day before and should have known that the kitchen was unsafe. She considered that her and her family’s life had been put at risk. The landlord responded. It reiterated its response at stage 1. It said that it was unable to make a finding in respect of its surveyor incorrectly advising the resident. It had been given different versions of the conversation.
It was sorry if its surveyor’s comments had been interpreted as giving a guarantee on anything in the property. It agreed that the resident was in danger on the day of the gas leak. It said there was no evidence to show that the gas leak was there prior to that day. It considered that it had done everything required by legislation, regulation and its own policies to reasonably protect the resident. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and the amount of compensation offered and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns a gas hob had been installed incorrectly.

Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
The landlord’s own gas servicing policy confirms its legal responsibility to undertake a safety check and relevant maintenance of gas and heating systems including gas fittings and appliances. It states that it will carry out visual checks on resident’s own appliances. Any problems identified will be recorded on the safety certificate and issued to the resident. Where the problem is potentially dangerous, the appliance will be disconnected, and the supply capped off.
Certain obligations in relation to electrical safety are implied into every tenancy agreement. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords must keep installations for the supply of electricity in repair and proper working order throughout the tenancy. Furthermore, under section 9A of the Act, landlords must ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from electrical hazards when the tenancy is granted and throughout the tenant’s occupation.
The landlord has provided evidence to show that electrical and gas inspections were completed when the resident mutually exchanged. This shows it acted in accordance with legislation and its own policies. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the certificates provided by its appointed contractors to satisfy itself that there were no risks within the property.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy is silent in respect of alterations and the position for incoming resident’s where they take responsibility for items. This Service has not had sight of the disclaimer that the resident signed. It is acknowledged however that the resident does not dispute that she signed this and agreed to take responsibility for the hob.
The landlord’s explanation that the required checks it completed would not have necessarily highlighted the issues as they were hidden was not unreasonable. This also coincides with its gas policy where it states it completes visual checks on the resident’s own appliances.
The landlord did state within its stage 2 response that the kitchen had been installed without consent by the previous tenant prior to 2017. It also explained that it did not maintain alteration and improvements made by tenants whether approved or not. It advised that the resident had agreed to sign the disclaimer in respect of the kitchen when she accepted the mutual exchange.
The installation of the kitchen by the previous tenant and what action the landlord took does not form part of this complaint. However, the landlord has a duty to ensure that its properties are free from hazards. At the point a landlord becomes aware of an alteration it should consider what certifications would be required to ensure that works are done to the correct standard.
The landlord’s current website states that where alterations are completed it will consider whether works have been completed by a competent/qualified person. Furthermore, it states before a mutual exchange is agreed alterations must be removed.
The landlord demonstrated within its complaint responses that it was keen to learn from the complaint. It said that it would review its mutual exchange process and its communication with residents. It also said that it would review whether mutual exchanges involving alterations should only be approved once it had received a safety certification from the resident. The fact that the landlord’s website is now clear on its position in respect of alterations and mutual exchanges shows that it did do what it said it would. This also offers reassurance that this will not happen again in the future.
When the resident first brought the issue to the landlord it agreed to contribute to the cost of a new gas hob. It also agreed to bring forward the renewal of her kitchen. This showed that the landlord had listened, taken her concerns seriously and that it had adopted a resolution focused approach.
The landlord clearly set out its position within both of its complaint responses. It was able to explain that it acted in accordance with its own policies and legislation. It reiterated its offer in relation to the gas hob and the kitchen. It then went further and offered the resident £400. It said it offered this because it recognized that a gas leak and being left with no cooking facilities would have caused distress. The landlord recognised the impact on the resident and took proportionate steps to assist the resident to restore her position. As such, this Service considers an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its staff member had advised that the hob was safe.

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord’ surveyor attended the property on 11 May 2023 to inspect as part of the landlord’s stock condition survey. The landlord said that the stock condition survey did not require an inspection of the hob or the kitchen units. It also explained within its stage 1 response that the surveyor was not qualified to comment on electrical and gas installations.
The landlord’s complaint responses showed that it had investigated further by interviewing its staff member. It clearly explained that its staff member had a different recollection of events. When there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with insufficient evidence to confirm either way it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish exactly what was said. The landlord was also therefore limited in what it could establish and what steps it could take. It appropriately apologised if any of its staff members comments had been interpreted incorrectly.
It is not disputed that the resident felt mislead by the surveyor. Particularly given that she discovered a gas leak the next day which would have caused her distress. However, based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not conclude exactly what had been said during the visit. As such, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process. There was therefore no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by (the landlord) or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
The complaints procedure comprises of two stages. Prior to a complaint being raised, however, the landlord will try to see whether matters can be resolved swiftly. At stage one, the complaint is allocated to a member of the Senior Management Team. If the resident is unhappy with what has been proposed through “swift resolution,” or does not wish to use the process, then a formal complaint will be opened. If a resident is unhappy with the response at stage one, the complaint will be escalated to stage two.
At stage two, a panel made up of the Chief Executive plus two board members meets to consider the complaint. The resident will be given the opportunity to provide their input and can join the meeting if they wish. The panel will provide the landlord’s final response, and their decision within five working days of the hearing.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 23 May 2023. The landlord sent an initial response on 14 June 2023. This was 16 days after the stage 1 request. It then sent a further stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. This was 25 working days after the resident had raised her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy is currently silent on a time scale for its stage 1 response. This is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code provides that landlords should aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It is acknowledged that the landlord has completed a self-assessment against the Code recently in June 2024. Within the assessment the landlord acknowledged that it is non-compliant currently. It said it aims to be once it has a complaint handler in post. It has set out an action plan with dates of when it aims to be compliant.
The landlord had tried to resolve the complaint initially using its swift complaint response. It then issued another stage 1 response based on the resident’s dissatisfaction. Both stage 1 responses however were clear and explained the landlord’s position. Although the landlord considered it had acted in accordance with its obligations it still sought to put matters right for the resident. It offered to contribute towards a new hob, renew the kitchen and it offered compensation for distress. The landlord also considered learning outcomes which showed it had listened to the resident and had taken her concerns seriously.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided within 23 working days which was just outside of its own timescale within its complaints policy. The evidence showed that the landlord had kept the resident updated and the resident had attended a panel hearing on 24 July 2022 in accordance with its complaints policy.
The stage 2 response was detailed. It provided a clear timeline of what had happened. It also set out its findings at stage 1. It explained what its panel had considered and its findings on each point. It reiterated the same resolution it had already offered at stage 1.
In summary the landlord’s complaint responses evidenced that it had completed an adequate investigation. The landlord showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The complaint response sought to restore the resident’s position which was appropriate. The landlord considered and later implemented learning outcomes which showed it was keen to avoid this happening again. However, failure to adhere to timeframe for complaint responses amounts to a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that a gas hob had been installed incorrectly.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its staff member had advised that the hob was safe.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders.

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations.

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £400 compensation as offered in its complaint response if it has not done so already.