ForHousing Limited (202103530)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103530

ForHousing Limited

20 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord‘s handling of:

a)     The resident’s reports about a gas leak.

b)     The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen at the property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about kitchen repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. Paragraph 39 (a) says that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are make prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure’. The kitchen and other repair issues are outside of jurisdiction as the landlord did not review this as part of the complaint process, as discussed in the review panel report. The work on the kitchen was still ongoing at the time of the most recent contact with the resident and she may complain to the landlord separately if required.

Background and summary of events

5. The resident and her children have lived in a three-bedroom house since 2015, and have no vulnerabilities recorded.

The tenancy agreement

6. The tenancy agreement dated 26 January 2015 sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord.  A generic tenancy agreement has been provided and section 6.2 covers the repair of gas installations and 6.3 covers gas safe inspections.

The gas safety policy

7. The landlord’s gas safety policy says that appropriately qualified and experienced staff will discharge duties on gas safety.

The complaints policy

8. The landlord’s online complaints policy does not give timescales, but the redress policy states says that stage one complaints with be investigated within 10 working days and stage two within 5 working days, or 21 working days if a panel is required. 

Summary of events

9. The landlord‘s repair report confirmed that operatives attended the resident’s property on 21 December 2020 to complete a gas safety service but were unable to do so as the test point was stuck.
10. On 6 January 2021, the landlord notes confirmed that it attended an emergency callout at the property due to a leaking radiator, which it said was caused by the resident bleeding the radiator and the pin coming away. It was unable to complete the gas safety service at that time due to an emergency callout elsewhere and there was no GSIUR (Gas Safety Installation and Use Regulations 1998) requirement to conduct any checks as no physical gas work had been undertaken during the visit.
11. The gas service was undertaken, and passed, on 20 January 2021. The landlord noted a defect, being that there was ‘lead pipework on inlet’. The               Gas Safety Record certificate records a pass, and details under ‘defects identified’ as ‘no security bolts, lead pipe on supply side. Compartment used for storage/boiler compartment used for storage’.
12. Landlord notes for 26 January 2021 showed that an operative attended after a referral from the gas supplier of a reported gas leak. No gas leak was identified by the operative during the visit. The operative took photographs of the analyser on which the tightness test was conducted. This was a timed test by a calibrated flue gas analyser. The Gas Safety Record Certificate from 26 January 2021 recorded a pass. Details showed ‘tightness test passed (confirmed no gas escape) reinstated gas supply boiler’ and that ‘Tenant had already reported this to gas provider due to be replaced soon along with a new smart meter’.
13. On 27 January 2021, the resident called the landlord. A call recording discussed in a later internal email provided by the landlord showed that the resident had asked whether its operative had fixed something given that they had said there was no gas leak the day before. The agent confirmed that nothing was fixed, a test had been done, and no leak had been found and that the tightness test had been done three times before with the same results. The agent said that the operative may have tightened something, but it was not on the notes, the landlord would check, but was confident there was no leak and the resident accepted this.  The email said that the end of the call did not record properly but the resident could be heard asking if there was a leak that had been fixed and the agent said he could only go from the notes, but he could confirm there was no leak.
14. Notes made by the landlord on 25 February 2021 showed that a complaint had been raised some weeks before but recorded wrongly so there had been no call back to the resident:
    1. The complaint was that a gas leak had started around Christmas when the resident had called as the boiler had stopped working, the landlord had attended, fitted a part, and fixed it.
    2. During the gas safety check at the end of January the engineer broke the nipple on the boiler so could not complete the check and the gas was capped. The resident had no heating and hot water (HAHW) or cooking for quite a few days. The landlord attended and rectified the issue, but the resident told the engineer she could smell gas and the engineer said there was no gas leak recorded and the smell was because a gas check had just been done.
    3. Three days later the resident called the gas supplier as she could still smell gas, they said she did have a leak and that if engineer did his job properly, he would have detected this. The gas was capped again.
    4. She wished to complain about being left with no HAHW and cooking facilities and that she and her children were in danger as the landlord did not check when she had told the engineer.
    5. She was unhappy that gas was detected five days after she was told it was all clear, and that the operative who attended after the gas supplier told her something different to what was recorded. The resident had paperwork from the supplier which stated a drop of 7.5 millibar in gas cupboard area. She said the operative told her there was no leak, but paperwork said he fixed a leak. She also said the operative was rude to her and she recorded the call to the landlord following his visit as he said there was no leak.             
15. A call from the landlord to the resident on 8 March 2021 further discussed the above issues. The resident said that she believed there had been a ‘cover up’ as the landlord had passed the safety check. The resident wanted to be compensated in some way due to the worry about a gas explosion and was happy to have a reduction in rent, as an apology was not enough anymore. The landlord noted that in this instance it believed there had been an error by the gas supplier or a miscommunication as there was no gas leak reported or found by its operatives on any visit, and if it had been the case the operatives would repair or make safe as per GSIUR.
16. Further notes made by the contractor on 16 March 2021 confirmed that where the defect on the Gas Safety Record was recorded as ‘NCS’ this meant it was ‘not to current standard’. This classification was no longer recognised by Gas Safe as it referred to aspects that presented no risk or danger to any user but was recorded by the contractor as requested by the landlord.  The lead pipework was ‘NCS’ as new pipework was required to be copper, but it was still fully compliant with GSIUP and GSIUR 1998 to be left in situ. There was no requirement to note this, it was at the request of the landlord that the contractor did so.
17. Where the Gas Safety Record referred to the LGSR ‘tightness test passed, reinstated gas supply boiler IWP’ this indicated there was no repair or gas leak recorded, the gas was simply reinstated, after the supply was capped.
18. The contractor believed the resident may have misinterpreted the term ‘reinstated’ as a repair. The certificate was a legal document which could be accessed at any point by Gas Safe or the HSE (health and safety executive) so there was no viability to create such a cover up. Further, all operatives were Gas Safe registered and understood what came with that, such as jail terms if they were to leave an unsafe situation.
19. On the same day, a complaint response was sent to the resident:
    1. Apologies were given that the complaint was not progressed before.
    2. The landlord explained that the annual gas service was passed on 20 January 2021 and after the supplier reported a leak, the contractor attended on 26 January 2021 and carried out a further thorough ‘turn on and test’ visit and no gas leak of any sort was found. The safety report said gas was reinstated which simply meant that it was reinstated after being capped.
    3. The landlord apologised if the resident felt she and her family were left in unsafe conditions, but the landlord reassured her that this was not the case.
    4. The landlord apologised if the resident felt the operative was rude and said that this would be dealt with internally. Further appeal rights were given.
20. On 21 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted a review panel to consider the complaint at the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. This was arranged to take place via a video meeting on 8 June 2021.  
21. Following the review panel meeting the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 Jun 2021 with the outcome of the review:
    1. The panel found that the resident was given the same information when she called, as in the stage one response, that the gas had been reinstated.
    2. The family were not put at risk from a leak, but the panel were concerned that no apology had been given about the behavior of the operative and asked for this to be investigated and wanted to offer an apology for the upset caused.
    3. The letter said that the kitchen repairs did not form part of the review, but that an update would be included as the resident had raised these issues as part of her discussions with the Ombudsman; the update said that the kitchen had been added to a replacement kitchen programme and the resident would be contacted directly about this. 
    4. Referral rights to this Service were given.

Since the final response was issued

22. The resident has since contacted this Service to raise the issue of other repairs outstanding to the kitchen and elsewhere, work on which was ongoing.   

  Assessment and findings

23. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident, in line with any relevant policies and procedures, and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether there was a gas leak at the property, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems in a reasonable and competent manner.

Report of a gas leak  

24. There is no evidence of a gas leak at the time the landlord attended the property in December 2020/January 2021. The landlord has confirmed that operatives were appropriately qualified and used equipment which was properly calibrated, and results recorded officially and available for inspection.
25. There is no basis to find differently to the landlord’s expert personnel/contractors who made the finding that there was no gas leak at the time it attended. There would appear to be a misunderstanding around was meant by the gas being ‘reinstated’, which the resident understood to mean a repair had taken place. The information the resident gave about equipment being broken and the dates of visits does not agree with the landlords’ records, but there was no evidence of any alternative to the information given by the landlord.
26. The concern expressed by the resident in relation to a potential gas leak is appreciated. However,the landlord responded in a timely manner to the resident’s concerns by arranging for suitably qualified personnel to attend the property and inspect the gas appliances and supply. Having identified no significant gas safety issues, including any gas leaks, during their inspections, it was appropriate for the landlord’s operatives to have left the property with the gas supply reinstated on each occasion. It is also evident that the landlord’s operatives ensured that the resident was left with appropriate documentation, certifying that the gas supply was safe, on each occasion. As such, no service failure has been found on behalf of the landlord in respect of its action in responding to the reports of a gas leak.
27. The resident stated in her complaint that she had been left without heating and hot water for extended periods, amounting to several days, as a result of the issues she had experienced with the gas supply. Whilst the landlord’s complaint responses referenced this issue when summarising the complaint, they did not explicitly respond to say whether or not, in its view, the household had been left without these essential services for an unreasonable period.
28. Having reviewed the evidence however, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s operatives attended sufficiently promptly such that any periods without heating and hot water were minimised, with no evidence that any such periods extended overnight. Whilst this would no doubt have been both inconvenient and distressing for the resident, the landlord’s prompt actions ensured that the household was not inconvenienced unduly.
29. The resident has expressed that one of the contractors who attended her property was rude. This Service appreciates the distress that such a matter would cause, particularly at a time when the resident was already concerned about a possible gas leak. The Ombudsman is therefore pleased that this issue was responded to in both the stage one response and the review panel outcome and that an apology was made for the upset this caused the resident. In fact, the panel said that it was concerned that an apology had not been offered about the member of staff, but the stage one complaint response dated 16 March 2021 did in fact make an apology about this.
30. Any further action on this issue would be a personnel matter for the landlord to deal with as it sees fit, and not something that is within the remit of this Service. Any employment action is a separate matter for the landlord to consider, taking into consideration its internal policies. The landlord has stated that the issue of staff attitude would be investigated internally, and an apology was made. This demonstrated the landlord taking the issue seriously and taking proportionate action.
31. The landlord’s complaint responses were sent outside of the timescales detailed in its complaints policy, for which it apologised. The Ombudsman accepts that delays and mistakes can occur but looks to see that any failings are recognised. In the circumstances, given that the delays in responding were not excessive, the landlord’s apology is considered to be a reasonable response, reflecting the service failure.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a gas leak.
33. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the complaint about kitchen repairs is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

34. The landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the gas safety concerns raised by the resident. It arranged for qualified operatives to attend the property and inspect the issues that arose and having identified no gas leaks within the property, it was appropriate that the property was certified as gas safe.

Recommendations

35. It is recommended that the landlord remind staff of the timescales given in its complaints policy to ensure that complaints are answered in a timely manner and that residents are kept informed of any delays, to better manage expectations.