Basildon Borough Council (202121877)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121877

Basildon Borough Council

1 December 2022

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 handling of the resident’s reports of being without gas for several months following works to separate a shared gas meter.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat which is owned by the landlord. The resident disclosed having post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The landlord works in partnership with its property services company who carry out repairs and maintenance services to council owned properties. The company undertakes gas safety checks, servicing, repairs and renewals to all domestic gas heating and hot water systems.
The resident shared a gas supply with one other property. The landlord started a works programme in 2016, notifying its residents of the forthcoming changes to remove all shared gas supplies. The landlord worked alongside the gas distribution company, the meter company and the gas supplier.

Policies and Procedures

Tenant handbook

The landlord’s tenant handbook states:
1. The landlord is responsible for the gas pipework and the meter box as well as the gas supply pipe from the gas meter.
2. The resident is responsible for the supply of gas. The company the resident has a contract with to supply gas, is responsible for the meter and the supply pipe to it.
3. The resident is responsible for contacting the gas company if there is a problem with the meter.

Gas Safety Regulations

Under the Gas Safety Regulations 1998, the landlord is required to maintain all gas appliances within the property and must arrange annual safety checks.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that:
1. Priority one repairs are attended to the same day (emergency gas repairs – attend within 2 hours) and covers gas heating or gas hot water breakdowns.
2. Priority two repairs cover all responsive repairs and should be completed within 28 days.

Complaints, compliments and comments policy:

The landlords complaint policy has a three stage process. It has a set service standard to respond to complaints within 10 working days.
Stage zero complaints can be logged before a formal complaint is submitted. Stage one and two complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. It notes that the customer will be kept up to date with the progress of the complaint and information should not exceed 10 working days between each update.

Summary of events

The annual gas servicing at the resident’s property was due on 4 March 2020. An operative attended the address on this day but was unable to gain access to complete the gas service. The operative reattended the following day but was unable to conduct the service as the property had no gas meter. The operative advised the resident to check which gas supplier previously supplied his property.
On 18 September 2020, whilst attending a job in the resident’s area, an operative reported a strong smell of gas coming from near to the residents property. The gas board attended the same day and the gas was capped.
On 13 November 2020, the resident reported that his boiler was not working. The report log stated that flats were on individual meters, so it was unsure where the resident was getting his gas supply. The call was logged as an emergency repair. The repair log noted a requirement to complete an annual gas service after the repair (the original service was due in March 2020 but repair log suggested that operatives had been unable to obtain access). An operative attended the same day, however, was unable to access the property. There were a further two failed access attempts made on 16 and 23 November 2020.
On 23 November 2020, the repair log stated, “unable to gain access into property on various occasions to carry out annual gas service”. A secondary note on the log confirmed that the operative had not found a gas meter for the property, and the gas had been disconnected by the gas board.
Four months later, on 2 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating:
1. He had been without gas since 18 September 2020, 23 weeks during winter and lockdown.
2. He had a “nightmare” trying to arrange a new meter installation and felt that he was palmed off between the landlord, the gas supplier and the gas board. He noted that he required a meter point reference number (MPRN) to install a new meter.
3. The gas board did not attend a pre-arranged appointment on Christmas eve (and failed to attend a further two appointments). He was told that the gas board would not install a new meter until the distribution company had completed a “live or dead” check.
4. The gas meter was installed on 25 February 2021. The resident contacted the landlord to inform it that his meter was installed and that he needed his gas turned on. The resident stated he contacted the landlord on four occasions over the space of four days. An operative attended on 2 March 2021 to test the boiler, however, it failed an emission test. A replacement boiler was ordered.
5. The resident advised the landlord that he had spent untold amounts of money on electric heating and takeaways and as a result was in debt. He stated that it had been a tough and traumatic six months.
The resident advised this Service that the landlord’s contractors had provided him with two electric heaters. The resident stated the property was “extremely cold” and so he purchased two oil heaters (one for the bedroom and one for the lounge).
In response to the resident’s complaint, the property services company emailed the landlord on 2 March 2021 confirming its supervisor would call the resident regarding his complaint, and that an appointment would be booked to install a new boiler.
The resident stated he did not receive a response to his initial complaint in March and sent a further email to the landlord on 24 May 2021. The landlord responded advising the resident that it had replied via the email address that the original complaint came from, and that the case had been closed in March 2021. The resident stated he had not received a response and requested that the landlord resend the letter.
The resident sent a further email on 6 October 2021, prompting the landlord for a response to his original complaint made in March 2021.
The landlord sent a stage zero response on 20 October 2021 apologising for the difficulties experienced by the resident. It partially upheld his complaint for the delay in resolving the matter. It explained the following:
1. There were appointments that were attended by the landlord where it had been unable to gain access to the property.
2. On 18 September 2020, an engineer attended and smelt gas near the property and the gas was capped by the gas board.
3. The resident shared a gas meter until 31 October 2020, at which point the meter was disconnected from the mains supply.
4. It confirmed that the MPRN needed to be obtained from the gas supplier by the resident to have his own gas meter fitted.
5. The resident was without gas from 31 October 2020 to 2 March 2021. As soon as the resident notified the landlord that his meter had been fitted, an engineer attended. The boiler subsequently failed a flue emission test. A new boiler was ordered and fitted on 10 March 2021.
6. It apologised and offered £200 compensation for the delays the resident experienced and confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
7. It attached links for the resident to submit complaints to the gas board and the gas supplier.
Further emails were sent from the resident and subsequently the landlord arranged a home visit on 23 November 2021 to give the resident an opportunity to discuss his issues fully.
After the visit, the resident emailed thanking the landlord for visiting and making him feel that he was being heard. The resident went on to say that he felt he had been failed by the landlord and the resolution for him and his family would be compensation of £20,000 and a move due to overcrowding.
The landlord responded the next day advising the resident that it had taken note of all the issues raised during the home visit, and advised that it would take a couple of weeks to investigate, before it would be in a position to discuss the matter further and bring it to some conclusion.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response and apologised for the delay in responding. It noted it had taken longer than expected due to needed to engage with other organisations involved. It explained the following in its response:
1. There was a long-standing programme to remove shared gas supplies, to enable residents to choose their supplier. The programme was not one of immediate change, but engagement with tenants to advise of forthcoming changes.
2. It confirmed the recording of all correspondence sent out stating that there were six letters sent in total informing the resident of the planned works.
3. The gas leak was determined to be coming from the shared supply of the resident. On 18 September 2020 the disk was removed, repair carried out and the gas capped.
4. It reiterated that the gas supply pipe up to the meter was the responsibility of the gas supply company.
5. On the 13, 16 and 23 November 2020 operatives attended the resident’s property after he reported that his boiler was not working, however they were unable to gain access.
6. It confirmed the neighbouring resident, who shared the gas supply with the resident, had made necessary arrangements to have an individual supply. However, the resident had not organised his installation as instructed to by the landlord.
7. It noted a further complication in the matter was the resident using three different email addresses when making contact.
8. Lastly, it acknowledged that it must have been a difficult time for the resident, but it did not feel it could have done any more.
In response, the resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2021 to advise that he was unhappy with its response and considered its proposal to be outrageous. The landlord responded on 30 December 2021 concluding that the residents’ comments had been noted but it had nothing further to add and that the resident was given an opportunity to discuss all his concerns during the home visit. It had conducted a thorough investigation and offered what it felt to be an appropriate amount of compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommended values.
The resident remained dissatisfied and requested an escalation of his complaint on 6 January 2022. He stated he wanted a fair and just resolution for the horrendous way he was treated. A confirmation email sent the same day advised the resident that a response would be sent no later than 20 January 2022 and confirmed the email address that the response would be sent to.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 January 2022 to apologise for the delay in sending a response but that it would provide an update as a matter of urgency.
The resident made contact with the landlord on 4 February 2022 having not received its response. The landlord replied the same day confirming investigations were taking longer than they had hoped due to officers being unexpectedly away from the office and it would provide a response as soon as possible.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 February 2022, partially upholding the complaint. Following its review of the case it felt it answered comprehensively and that no further comments would bring value to the case. It acknowledged that it would have been a challenging time for the resident and offered the resident £200 in compensation. It gave details for the resident to escalate the complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being without gas for several months following works to separate a shared gas meter.

This Service understand the resident to have been without gas from September 2020 until March 2021 and that the landlord was aware in September 2020 that the gas had been capped.
The landlord’s repairs policy classes gas boiler and heating breakdowns as an emergency repair. The Ombudsman also takes the view that lack of heating should be treated as an emergency repair and should be resolved as soon as possible – especially in winter, due to the effect the lack of these amenities might have on a resident. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for providing access to a reliable source of heat and hot water at all times.
The resident does not dispute being made aware of the planned works to remove his shared gas supply, nor is it suggested that he was unaware of his obligations to get his own gas meter installed to his property. The landlord advised sending six letters in total in 2018, however, this Service has not seen the letters to conclude that the landlord provided the resident with enough advice and assistance on the steps he would need to take to get his own gas meter installed.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s annual gas service was due on 3 March 2020. Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety Regulations 1998, the landlord is required to ensure that any gas fitting at the premises is maintained in a safe condition and checked for safety at intervals of no more than 12 months.
In the interests of ensuring safety of the resident, neighbours and staff, the landlord is expected to take a robust approach in line with the tenancy agreement and gas safety policy in the event of a resident failing to provide access. The landlord’s gas safety policy states that it will notify a resident, two weeks in advance of a gas servicing appointment, which in this case was due on 4 March 2020. This Service has not seen evidence that the resident was sent a letter, prior to the contractor attending his property on the 4 March 2020, or evidence that the landlord wrote to the resident to emphasise the importance of an annual gas check and to remind him of his tenancy obligations relating to access. The landlord has therefore not provided this Service with enough evidence to conclude that it made reasonable attempts to contact the resident from March 2020, after which the service was due.
In the resident’s initial complaint in March 2021, he stated being without gas since September 2020 and advised the landlord of his multiple efforts and “months of ringing and conversations” to sort his gas meter installation but was “palmed off” between the landlord, the gas distribution company and the gas supplier. Records do not confirm that the resident was provided with appropriate guidance in 2020-21 on how to remedy the gas meter issue, including who to contact to obtain as MPRN, or that a “live or dead” check was required, exasperating the situation for the resident who described it as a “traumatic” time.
In November 2020, according to the landlord’s repair log, the operative noted that “the tenant is without gas and needs to know who his supplier used to be in order to get a gas meter fitted – unable to carry out gas service”. Even though the resident requested help at that point, this Service is unable to confirm that the landlord provided the requested gas supplier details, or assisted the resident with how to obtain this information.
The resident’s household included a child who he had primary care for. The issues he faced impacted his ability to have heating and adequate cooking facilities. The resident advised the landlord that he had incurred extra costs due to using electric heaters and ordering takeaway meals for an extended period of time. The resident advised this Service that he was provided with two electric heaters by the landlord’s contractors but the property remained “extremely cold” and that the landlord did not do anything. As a result, the resident purchased two oil heaters in order to keep his property warm. Given the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord, or contractor on its behalf, to have provided enough temporary heaters to heat the property through the winter months and appropriately address reports of the resident being cold.
Despite the resident informing the landlord that the property was cold, he was living on takeaways because he couldn’t use the gas cooker and subsequently he had got himself into debt, the landlord failed to address these points within its complaint responses and therefore did not respond in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Although the resident has not provided this Service with evidence of additional costs that were incurred whilst he was without gas, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise the cumulative impact on the resident’s household and address any financial loss within its complaint response.
This Service must consider the extent to which the resident’s actions have contributed to the situation they found themselves in. Had the resident proactively acted upon the instructions given regarding his meter installation, the impact of the situation could have been minimised. This has been considered when assessing the level of compensation offered by the landlord. Awards of compensation are made to recognise that there has been some detriment to the resident, and the amount of the award should be proportional to the level of detriment experienced by the resident because of any failing on the part of the landlord.

~~40.~~ The compensation offered by the landlord does not reasonably reflect the impact the lack of gas supply had on the resident over the six month period, and its complaint responses failed to appropriately address the issues faced by the resident. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord for this element of his complaint should be increased to £300 to better reflect the overall inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and for the failings identified.

Complaint handling

In its complaints policy, the landlord asserts that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about its standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, or its employees; in connection with any services it has responsibility for, which affects either an individual customer or group of customers.
In this case, the landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s complaint in March 2021, when it should have been logged as a formal complaint in line with its policy. Subsequently, the landlord closed the residents complaint on 15 March 2021 stating that a closure letter had been sent. The resident disputes receiving the letter. Given this Service has not had sight of the letter either, it has not been possible to conclude that the case was closed correctly, with a satisfactory explanation provided to the resident.
The landlord took seven months to issue a stage zero response after receiving the complaint in March 2021. Several emails, expressing the residents dissatisfaction were made in March, May and October 2021, as the landlord had failed to respond or progress the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure by the landlord to demonstrate it had consideration for the resident’s complaint concerns. By deviating from the complaints policy, the landlord extended the overall timeframe of the complaints procedure and effectively hindered the resident from escalating his complaint.
The landlord further failed to escalate the complaint to stage one in November 2021, incorrectly logging it as a general enquiry. The landlord noted its mistake, however, the landlord’s complaint records should have demonstrated that it had already provided a stage zero response, and in line with its complaints policy, escalate to stage one. The landlord’s failure to action the complaint appropriately, further delayed the escalation of the resident’s complaint.
Prompted again by the resident in December 2021 and January 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response on 10 February 2022, three months after the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay, however, it failed to progress the complaint and resolve matters at the earliest opportunity, thereby also missing an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship. Overall, the landlord took eleven months to send its final complaint response.
The Ombudsman accepts that delays can occur, in this case, the landlord was required to liaise with other services which meant a delay in its response. However, the landlord was not proactively keeping the resident updated and informed, resulting in the resident having to pursue the landlord for responses, which is a failing on the landlord’s part.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlords redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord made a compensation award for its failure to resolve the complaint within an appropriate timeframe, however, the amount offered does not reflect the evident inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the delay in issuing its stage zero, stage one and stage two responses, or having to make further complaints in order to progress matters. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a sum of £300 to better reflect the evident inconvenience and frustration to the resident caused by the complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of being without gas for several months following works to separate a shared gas meter.
2. Complaint Handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider the impact of having no gas supply would have on the resident through the winter months and did not offer compensation for the inconvenience and distress that would have been caused to the resident. In failing to provide evidence that it proactively sought access to carry out an annual gas check, the landlord missed a chance to mitigate the situation entirely, or resolve the issue at an earlier opportunity.

~~51.~~ The landlord did not follow its complaint policy. As a result, there was an extensive delay in it issuing the stage zero, stage one and stage two responses. While the landlord offered some compensation for the delay, it did not remedy the full inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident and further redress is appropriate.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, this is broken up as:
  1. £300 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by its failings with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of being without gas.
  2. £300 for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
3. Carry out training to ensure that all staff are aware that complaints should be dealt with in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
4. The landlord should carry out a case review, to confirm that their procedures for removing shared gas supplies are proactively working to ensure residents are not without gas for lengthy periods of time. The landlord should establish if there are service improvements that can be made to prevent a similar situation happening in the future. The outcome of this review must be shared with the Ombudsman in writing.