Haringey Council (201915284)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915284

Haringey Council

18 January 2021

Our approach

 

1.     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.

 

2.     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

 

3.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

 

3.1 a gas leak at the resident’s property.

 

3.2 the associated formal complaint.

 

Background

 

4.     On 28 June 2016 the resident contacted his Emergency Service Provider (National Grid) and reported a suspected leak of carbon monoxide. National Grid disconnected his gas supply at the meter and the landlord’s gas engineer advised the resident to go to hospital first, before the gas supply/appliances were tested and switched back on. On 30 June 2016 the landlord’s engineer attended the property, replaced the burner seal, carried out combustion tests and reinstated the gas supply. The landlord’s records show that a test for carbon monoxide was carried out and found that there was no leak.

 

Summary of events

 

5.     In 2018, following a complaint by the resident about fumes in his property, the landlord arranged for a gas inspection to take place by a third-party audit and inspection team. A site visit was made on 6 September 2018. On 19 September 2018 the landlord’s gas team provided its complaints team with details of the audit investigation report dated 10 September 2018 which showed that there was a minor fault with the cable sleeving around the electrical supply to the boiler. However, the landlord’s records show that testing levels for ambient CO/CO2 levels confirmed no CO and it was concluded that this did not affect the combustion gases detected during the investigation of the resident’s concerns or prove there was any risk from the gas pipework/appliance to the resident, surrounding residents or property. The landlord subsequently closed the complaint.

 

 

6.     The resident contacted the leader of his local authority on 2 April 2019 complaining about an ongoing issue with his boiler. He said that the boiler was releasing carbon monoxide gas which caused him to become ill and forced him to give up work. He stated that, as a result, he had suffered financially and was unable to buy his council property.

 

7.     On 4 April 2019 the leader of the council’s office queried with the landlord whether the resident’s complaint had been escalated to Stage 2 of the complaints process, as he was dissatisfied with the Stage 1 response. An initial response to this query confirmed that it was unlikely that the response would be any different at Stage 2 given that the landlord knew there was no carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances at the property.

 

8.     In the landlord’s letter to the council of 12 April 2019, it confirmed that the complaint of fumes had been fully investigated previously, and all reports and gas certification inspections confirmed that no gas appliances were causing a health risk. It confirmed that it was unable to accept the resident’s claims that ill health and his loss of job was the result of carbon monoxide when its investigations concluded that there was no carbon monoxide poisoning from gas appliances at the property. It also advised that it had been trying to contact the resident to arrange a home visit but had been unable to reach him. It would therefore write to him to arrange this.

 

9.     The resident attended an interview with the landlord on 8 May 2019, during which he reiterated that National Grid had disconnected his gas supply following a suspected carbon monoxide leak in the premises in 2016. He said the leak had impacted his health and he had to resign from his job on health and safety grounds. He claimed that the landlord’s contractors had ignored complaints about leaks and he therefore requested compensation from it. The landlord queried whether the resident was still experiencing leaks but he confirmed that the sealant to his boiler had now been replaced and this had resolved the problem. On 21 May 2019 the landlord confirmed that the complaint was being investigated further.

 

10. On 11 September 2019, the landlord conducted a gas incident interview with the resident, during which he confirmed that he smoked between 15 and 20 cigarettes a day and had done so since the age of 13. He also confirmed that he had attended hospital on 29 June 2016 following the original incident on 28 June 2016 and the hospital results indicated a high level of monoxide in his blood stream.

 

11. In a complaint investigation report of 24 February 2020, written by the Gas Contracts Manager, he detailed the initial alleged leak in 2016, the gas safety inspections which had subsequently been undertaken at the property, the fumes investigation report of 2018, and the subsequent events. He concluded that there was no evidence of a leak that expelled carbon monoxide into the property. However, he recommended compensation for the disruption of the gas supply, as heating/hot water and cooking facilities could not be used at the various times when the appliances were being tested in 2016 and there was delay when the incident was initially reported.

 

12. On 27 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would not escalate his complaint any further. It said that, had its gas contractor been found to have acted dangerously or in an unsafe manner then the Health and Safety Executive would issue a RIDDOR report, which had not happened. It noted that the complaint was originally responded to in 2018 and the resident was outside time to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 as there was a 6-month time limit for escalating complaints. The resident was advised that he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and that his complaint could now be considered by the Ombudsman.

 

13. On 21 July 2020 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it did not consider that compensation was appropriate for the complaint, as the resident would only have been without gas for two days between 28 and 30 June 2016 and there was no conclusive evidence to attribute any CO2 in the resident’s blood stream to a gas leak.

 

Policies and Procedures

 

14. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:

 

14.1         Stage 1 is a service investigation stage. The target time is 10 working days and the complaints process is overseen by a senior manager;

 

14.2         Residents unhappy with the decision at Stage 1 can request an independent review at Stage 2. The landlord’s Feedback and Information Governance team then independently reviews how the complaint has been handled. This normally takes place within six months;

 

14.3         Residents dissatisfied with the response at Stage 2 can request that the Residents’ Complaints Panel review the complaint. The Panel can recommend a resolution that the landlord should carry out if the Resident Complaints Panel think it has failed in delivering a service. The Panel can also refer complaints to the Ombudsman if either the resident or landlord refuse its recommendation.  

 

15. The landlord’s policy on repairs specifies that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, non-emergency (agreed appointment) repairs will be completed within 28 days.

 

Assessment

 

2016

 

16. It is clear that the resident’s concerns about gas leaking into his property originate from the incident in 2016. However, there is no evidence of him raising a formal complaint with the landlord at that time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.

 

17. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that this Service will not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the events of 2016 are included for context to the current complaint, this investigation does not comment on the landlord’s actions, or consider whether any redress was payable for the service delivered, at that time.

 

2018

 

18. Following a two-year break in reports, the resident raised further concerns about gas leaks in September 2018. In accordance with his tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was responsible for repairing and maintaining the installations in the property for the supply of gas and for space and water heating. Therefore, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s concerns and take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.

 

19. The landlord did so by promptly carrying out an inspection, producing a fumes investigation report, satisfying itself that there was no risk to the resident or other tenants, replacing the sealant around the boiler, and explaining its findings to the resident. This demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously, applied appropriate resources to investigating the matter, and confirmed its position to the resident. It acted in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy (see paragraph 15 above) and overall provided a reasonable response to the reports.

 

20. It is clear that the resident still had concerns about the extent to which the reported leaks had resulted in carbon monoxide poisoning and this Service appreciates that this would have been very distressing for him. However, the landlord arranged for appropriate inspections to be carried out and it was then within its rights to rely on the professional opinion of its suitably qualified staff in responding to the reports. Therefore, whilst the resident may disagree with the landlord’s conclusions, it was reasonable for it to conclude that no further action was necessary, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

 

21. Given that the resident did not pursue the matter further for another seven months, until he contacted the local authority in April 2019, it would be reasonable to deduce that he did not have serious concerns about the leaks, or the associated impacts on his health, during this time. It was only at this point that the formal complaint was pursued with the landlord again and it initially reiterated its conclusions from 2018. However, it went on to conduct a further investigation into the complaint, culminating in the Gas Contracts Manager’s report of 24 February 2020. As this confirmed that there was no evidence of a leak that expelled carbon monoxide into the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to conclude that no further action was necessary, and that there were no identifiable failures in service.

 

22. A key part of the resident’s complaint concerned the alleged detrimental impact of the ‘gas leaks’ on his health since 2016 and the associated financial losses he had incurred. As stated above, this Service is not assessing the events dating back to 2016 within this investigation and so does not comment on any impacts from that time. With regard to the reports made in 2018, no evidence has been produced, to either the landlord or this Service, which suggests that there was a gas leak in the property, or that such a leak has materially impacted upon the resident’s health or financial situation. As a result, it was right for the landlord to conclude that no compensation was payable in that regard.

 

23. It should also be noted that this Service is unable to determine matters of causation and liability in terms of how a landlord’s actions might have impacted upon a resident’s health and well-being. Such issues would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or as an insurance claim, where appropriate professional medical evidence can be properly reviewed. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other procedure.

 

24. In the absence of any evidence of a failure in service, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in 2018, there is nothing to warrant the payment of compensation in that regard.

 

Complaints handling

 

25. The chronology of events indicates that the resident first raised a formal complaint in around September 2018, when the landlord responded and closed the complaint. As stated above, there is no evidence of the resident seeking to escalate the complaint until April 2019, some seven months later. As an escalation request should be received from the complainant within six months of the Stage 1 response, the landlord was not strictly required to reopen the complaint when the council made contact on the resident’s behalf. The Ombudsman supports this approach and exercises the same limitation on our own investigations (see paragraph 17 above).

 

26. Whilst the landlord did indicate that the complaint was out of time for investigation, it did not reject the complaint solely on that basis. Instead, it stated that a Stage 2 complaint investigation was unlikely to change the outcome of the Stage 1 response. This approach fundamentally undermines the purpose of a multi-tiered complaints process, which is to review the investigation and findings of the previous stage to ensure that they were sound, evidence-based, and clearly explained. Without considering the complaint again, the landlord could not have known that its Stage 1 response was properly decided and unlikely to change. Further, the complaints policy does not provide for escalation requests to be rejected in this way.

 

27. Despite the landlord’s initial refusal to escalate the complaint, it then went on to conduct further investigations, without clearly explaining its position or the process to the resident. It conducted a tenancy verification visit and inspected the resident’s home environment for other issues that might raise health concerns.  As a result, the landlord ultimately undertook further investigations following the closure of the Stage 1 response which could be considered to constitute a Stage 2 review. However, as the landlord did not definitively confirm this and, in fact, continued to say that the complaint was not being escalated, whilst carrying out further investigations, this caused unnecessary confusion and uncertainty to the resident throughout this period. By failing to follow the procedure set out in its complaints policy, the landlord exacerbated an already distressing situation for the resident and denied him the opportunity to formally pursue a resolution.

 

28. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution principles indicate that landlords’ complaints handling procedures should be user focused and demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the residents’ position in the event of anything going wrong. In this case, there was a lack of clarity around how the complaint was being dealt with and why the recommendation for compensation made by the Gas Contracts Manager following his investigation was rejected by the landlord.

 

29. This Service notes that the recommendation for compensation related to the events of 2016, and so the substantive recommendation is not considered or restated here. However, the landlord should have clearly explained within a formal complaint response why it did not consider it necessary or appropriate to follow the Manager’s recommendation. Without this, it does not demonstrate that the landlord has taken the time to fully consider all the information available to it or explain its position to the resident, which is a key part of an effective complaints process.

 

Determination

 

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was:

 

30.1         no maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaints about a gas leak at the resident’s property;

 

30.2         service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated formal complaint.

 

Orders

 

31. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of the poor handling of the complaint.