The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Bromford Housing Association Limited (201914576)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 201914576

Bromford Housing Association Limited

1 December 2020

 


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 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. The complaint is about the removal of a gas pipe during a boiler upgrade. The Ombudsman also considered complaint handling.

 

Background and Summary of events

 

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has resided at the property for around ten years.

 

  1. It is agreed between the parties that when the resident took up occupation, he made use of an electric cooker. In 2015, the landlord upgraded the boiler. In doing so, it removed a gas pipe which allowed the property to make use of a gas cooker. The landlord states this was a usual practice where there was no use of the pipe.

 

  1. In 2019 the resident’s electric cooker broke down and was beyond economic repair. He purchased a new gas cooker but found that it could not be installed because of the removal of the gas pipe in 2015.

 

  1. The landlord has not presented any evidence to show that it sought the resident’s authority to remove the pipe. Moreover, there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident that it removed the pipe or that it was necessary for the boiler upgrade. It is accepted that the resident was only alerted to the pipe having been removed when the engineers attended to fit the gas cooker.

 

  1. The resident asked the landlord to install a gas pipe so the kitchen was the same as it was before the boiler upgrade – so far as the gas pipe was involved. The landlord said it was prepared to arrange this, but explained the resident was responsible for the cost involved.

 

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 16 January 2020. He said he had not requested nor had authorised the removal of the pipe. He asked that the landlord reinstate the gas installation so he could make use of the cooker.

 

  1. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 24 January 2020. It admitted its contractor had removed the pipe and this was common practice during boiler upgrades where the gas pipe was not in use. The landlord stated the property had no supply for a gas cooker for four years and the resident should have checked this before he purchased a gas cooker.

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to reconsider its position. He said the landlord should have made him aware of such a fundamental change. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaint procedure.

 

  1. On 13 February 2020, the landlord issued a final response. It said it was only responsible to ensure there was either a gas or electricity installation to use a cooker, and not both. It said the resident was responsible for the cost of reinstating the gas installation so he could make use of a gas cooker. The landlord offered to have the work done but said it would recharge the resident for the cost of the work. Importantly, the final response was issued by the same member of staff that issued the stage 1 response.

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

 

Assessment and findings

 

  1. The first question for the Ombudsman, in this case, is whether the landlord ought to have informed the resident that it removed the gas pipe in 2015. The second question is whether the landlord ought to pay for the reinstatement of the pipe.

 

  1. When a landlord grants a tenancy, a resident takes the property as it is at the point the tenancy agreement is signed. Landlords are entitled to repair and make minor changes and alterations to the property whilst repairing.

 

  1. There is a rule in law that landlords must not ‘derogate from grant’ (Platt v London Underground [2001] 2 EGLR 121). That is to say, landlords must not change the property so that a benefit or convenience that was present at the start of the tenancy is reduced or removed.

 

  1. The rule means that landlords are not permitted to make fundamental changes to the property without the agreement of the resident or without an order of the court – as to do so would change the property from what it was when it was let.

 

  1. At the start of the tenancy, the resident had the option of installing either a gas or electric cooker or a dual-fuel cooker. It is not in dispute that whilst the resident agreed to the boiler upgrade, he was not made aware the gas pipe would be removed – so he would not have all the same options available to him should he ever purchase a new cooker. It is important to note that there is no evidence it was a necessity to remove the gas pipe. Moreover, the landlord’s contractor removed the pipe as matter of course – and so the landlord would have been well aware of this action at the time and no reason has been put forward for not giving the resident this information. Taken together, there was a failure by the landlord in removing the pipe without giving notice to the resident when the boiler upgrade went ahead.

 

  1. The landlord was responsible for a service failure because:

 

  1. It never sought the resident’s permission to remove the gas pipe;

 

  1. the landlord did not inform the resident that it had removed the pipe.

 

Complaint handling

 

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that when a resident disagrees with a stage 1 response, a stage 2 response should be issued by a senior member of staff. In this case, both stage 1 and stage 2 were issued by the same member of staff. This was not procedurally correct or fair. The purpose of having someone different consider the complaint is to have a fresh perspective and review.

 

  1. Moreover, the complaint responses did not consider whether the landlord ought to have informed the resident of the change to the gas installations following the upgrade to the boiler. It simply stated the resident should have checked this before he purchased the gas cooker in 2019.

 

  1. The landlord agreed to have the pipe reinstated – but would recharge the cost to the resident. The resident, however, could have mitigated his loss by agreeing for the work to be done and then challenging the charge via the complaint procedure and this Service.

 

  1. The complaint response did not consider that because the resident had not been informed of the change – that he purchased a cooker and paid for installation which he could not use.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:

 

  1. There was service failure by the landlord in removing the pipe during the boiler upgrade; and

 

  1. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint – because it did not follow its internal procedure.

 

Reasons

 

  1. Paragraph 54 of the Scheme states:

 

“When investigating, the Ombudsman is concerned to establish whether the member has been responsible for maladministration (which includes findings of service failure, maladministration and severe maladministration). This may include, but not exclusively, circumstances where the member:

 

a. failed to comply with any relevant legal obligations;

b. failed to comply with any relevant codes of practice;

c. failed to apply its own policies and/or procedures;

d. delayed unreasonably in dealing with the matter;

e. behaved unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently; or

f. treated the complainant personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.”

 

Removal of the gas pipe

 

  1. The landlord was under an obligation not to change the property without obtaining consent from the resident. Whilst the resident agreed on the upgrade of the boiler, he did not agree for the landlord to remove the gas pipe and reduce the available options open to him for his appliances. The landlord did not inform him that it would remove the pipe and so the landlord effected a change of the property without notice when it was not permitted to do this. For this, the landlord failed to comply with a relevant legal obligation.

 

The complaint handling

 

  1. The landlord did not follow its own policy and the same person issued both complaint responses. This was a failure to follow policies and procedures.

 

Orders

 

  1. I order the landlord to:

 

  1. reinstate the gas pipe at its own cost without recharging the cost to the resident;

 

  1. pay the resident £100 compensation for not notifying him of the change in 2015, when it ought to have reasonably done;

 

  1. pay the resident £50 compensation for failing to follow the correct complaint procedure; and

 

  1. IF the resident has to pay for further installation – the landlord should pay the cost of this.

 

  1. The landlord must pay the compensation to the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:

 

  • Consider implementing a policy that when non-essential work is completed during upgrade works, that residents are made aware of the same.

 

  • That its complaint staff remind themselves of the complaint procedure – in light of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.