Haringey London Borough Council (202311643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311643

Haringey London Borough Council

19 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the loss of gas supply to the property.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He moved into the property on 17 February 1992, initially under a license agreement. The property was a 1 bedroom flat within a block of 35 flats. The resident is hearing impaired and diabetic.
On 2 February 2023, the gas network operator attended the property. It found a gas leak from the resident’s meter and capped off the gas supply. The network operator supplied a hot plate and electric fan heaters to the resident. The landlord’s contractor attended the following day. It was unable to repair the leak due to needing to order parts.
The resident emailed his local councillor on 15 February 2023. He complained that he was still without gas and that the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend 3 appointments to reconnect his supply. The resident said he was unable to cook healthy meals and the electric fan heaters were expensive to run. He requested that the landlord reconnect his gas supply and compensate him for the costs of running the fan heaters. The councillor forwarded the resident’s email on to the landlord the same day.
The landlord responded to the councillor’s enquiry on 3 April 2023. It apologised for the delayed response and said that:
1. Its contractors had determined that the cause of the gas leak was the age and condition of pipework.
2. This could only be resolved by renewing all gas pipes to the building, which would mean switching off the gas supply to the whole block for a period.
3. Due to the scale of the works, and inconvenience that would be caused, it was still working with its contractor “to agree the best way forward”.
4. The resident had been supplied with “temporary provisions” due to the lack of gas.
5. Its records showed only 1 missed appointment. This was on 15 February 2023, when its contractor did not attend as the gas network operator was on site rectifying a gas leak. The contactor had attended the following day instead.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2023. He asked for it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 31 August 2023 repeating this request.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 October 2023. It said that a consultant surveyor had visited the block on 14 September 2023 “to provide a technical solution and cost estimate” for the works. It said that it would need to put the works out for tender and consult with leaseholders in the block. Due to this it did not expect the works to start until “well into the new year”. The landlord apologised for not keeping the resident better informed and not making “suitable proactive payments” to cover his additional electricity costs. It offered him £250 compensation in recognition of the length of time he had been without gas. The landlord said it was considering a temporary or permanent decant of the resident whilst it resolved the issue.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint on 16 October 2023. He said he was dissatisfied with how long it had taken the landlord to inform him that it would not be able to carry out the work until 2024. He said he was confused as he had previously been told that the issue was with his gas meter. He said he wished to see a copy of the surveyor’s report.
On 10 June 2024, the landlord permanently decanted the resident to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Gas supply

The landlord’s repair logs indicate that it became aware on 3 February 2023 that the network operator had cut off the resident’s gas supply. Its contactor attended the same day. A notice left by the network operator on 2 February 2023 indicated that the landlord needed to replace the gas meter. The landlord’s contactor’s notes state that it was unable to source a replacement meter at that time.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property again on 11 February 2022. This was logged as an ‘out of hours’ job, indicating that the resident contacted the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord had provided any update to the resident since 3 February 2023 – which likely caused this call. The landlord’s contractor noted that it already had a works order to replace the gas meter and did not undertake any work.
The landlord’s contractor cancelled a scheduled visit to the property on 15 February 2023 as the replacement meter had not arrived. A note on the repair log from 13 February 2023 indicates that it had been unable to contact the resident to confirm this appointment with him in advance. The landlord’s response to the councillor enquiry stated that this was the only missed appointment it had recorded. This Service has seen no evidence which contradicts that.
The resident made his complaint via his councillor on 15 February 2023. In this he expressed concern about the costs of running the electric appliances provided to him by the network operator. The landlord’s compensation policy says that “compensation will be paid to cover increased electrical costs experienced by customers from using alternative methods of heating (such as storage heaters) or generating hot water (boiling kettles) during periods when their landlord-controlled heating or hot water supply is unavailable”. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord considered such compensation prior to its stage 2 complaint response almost 8 months later.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor discovered that the issue was more complex than it had first thought. The landlord informed the resident that due to this “the gas supply may not be reinstated anytime soon”. It reasonably offered to decant the resident, who declined. The landlord also appropriately provided him with its proposed schedule of work. This included turning off the gas supply to the whole building for a day and accessing each individual flat.
Due to the resident wishing to remain in the property, the landlord took reasonable steps to improve his ‘temporary provisions’. On 17 February 2023 it delivered oil filled electric heaters and a mini oven with a hob. This showed appropriate regard for the concerns raised by the resident about being unable to cook healthy meals – which he said was affecting his diabetes.
On the same day the landlord sent its contactor to assess the possibility of installing an electric shower. The contractor then installed the shower on 20 February 2023. The landlord’s repair handbook says that “If you are without heat and/or hot water at any time following a visit by our gas contractors, you should be provided with temporary space and water heating equipment until the work is complete”. Despite this, the resident had been without bathing facilities for a period of over 2 weeks prior to the landlord having the shower installed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2023 requesting an update. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to this.
The landlord responded to the councillor’s enquiry on 3 April 2023. This was the first time it had advised that it would need to modernise all the gas pipes to the building to resolve the issue. It is unclear when the landlord became aware of this. It said that due to the larger scale and level of inconvenience of the works it was still working with its contractor “to agree the best way forward”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 April 2023 asking for an update. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to this.
A relative emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 17 May 2023. They said the resident was “stressed” as his electricity bill was “unaffordable” due to all the electric appliances the landlord had provided. They asked for an update on when the landlord would be reinstating the gas supply. The landlord replied the same day. It said that it “had been told that there are plant room issues” and would liaise with its contractor to provide an update. The resident’s relative responded that “I expect an update from you, without further prompts from me”. The landlord has not supplied evidence that it provided an update prior to its stage 2 complaint response – almost 5 months later.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023. This provided an appropriate update and gave a reasonable estimate as to when it expected works to commence. It is unclear why the landlord took until 14 September 2023 to have a consultant surveyor inspect the building when it was aware of the scale and complexity of the issue as early as April 2023. The landlord has not provided any information which explains this lengthy delay, or what actions it had taken in the interim.
The resident has expressed confusion at the scale of the works proposed by the landlord. He said that this differed significantly from the original diagnosis made by the network operator, which he says it reconfirmed to him in August 2023. When bringing his complaint to this Service he said he wished to see a copy of the consultant surveyor’s report. An order is made in this regard below.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident for failing to make “suitable proactive payments to cover additional electricity costs from the beginning”. This Service has not been provided with any evidence to show that the landlord has since made such payments. An order is made in this regard below.
The landlord also said it would revisit the possibility of decanting the resident from the property. This was reasonable considering the length of time it anticipated the works to take, the fact that winter was approaching, and the resident had previously expressed concern about his electric bills.
In summary, the landlord initially undertook an appropriate investigation of the gas leak and ensured that the resident had suitable amenities heat the property, cook and bathe (although there was some delay in the latter). However, it failed to appropriately communicate with the resident despite his repeated requests for an update and appears to have delayed unreasonably in arranging the consultant surveyor’s inspection. The landlord also failed to reimburse the resident for his increased electricity costs, in keeping with its policy, causing him undue distress over his bills.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £250 (separate from any reimbursement for electricity). This falls within the ‘high impact’ bracket of awards its compensation policy allows for matters where it accepts ‘partial responsibility’. As the landlord could not have reasonably foreseen the loss of the gas supply, or prevented the resident being without gas for a lengthy period this is an appropriate bracket.
However, this Service is not bound by the landlord’s policy and considers this sum insufficient to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Considering the failings identified by this report, a finding of maladministration is made. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a further £300 in compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident’s submitted his complaint via his local councillor. The landlord’s complaints policy says that “where a member of the public has raised their concerns about a Council Service through an elected member (a Councillor or MP) rather than through the complaints process, this is dealt with as a Member Enquiry rather than a complaint”.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), however, says that “a complaint that is submitted via a third party or representative must still be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy”.
The landlord’s approach meant that no stage 1 complaint response was provided to the resident. However, the detriment caused by this was limited as the landlord’s member enquiry response can be said to be broadly similar in nature and content.
The landlord did not respond to the councillor until 3 April 2023. This was 33 working days after it received the enquiry. Well beyond the 10 working days that its policy allows for stage 1 complaint or member enquiry responses. The landlord apologised for this delay in its response but did not provide any explanation for it.
The resident’s relative asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 27 May 2023, this indicated that the resident had also treated the member enquiry response as a stage 1 complaint response. Based upon this, it was reasonable for the landlord to go straight to stage 2 of its complaints process to avoid unnecessarily prolonging things and obstructing the resident’s ability to have his complaint investigated by this Service.
However, the landlord failed to act upon this escalation request, which lead the resident to approach the Ombudsman for assistance. After the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, on 31 August 2023, it emailed the resident on 1 September 2023 to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. It appropriately apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint said it would respond by 29 September 2023 – 20 working days later.
The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 10 October 2023. It has not provided any evidence that an extension was discussed with the resident, as is required under the Code. The resident told this Service on 4 October 2023 that he had not been contacted by the landlord since its acknowledgement.
The stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge the delays in both escalating and responding to the complaint at stage 2. Consequently, the landlord offered no redress for its failings. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s compensation policy does not contain any obvious reference to compensation for poor complaint handling. Clarifying its position on this would help empower the landlord’s complaint handling staff to offer reasonable redress in cases such as this. A recommendation is made in this regard below.
Considering the length of delays, and the fact that the resident had to take the time and trouble to contact the Ombudsman, a finding of maladministration is made. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the time and trouble he took in pursuing his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a loss of gas supply to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £700 composed of:
  1. The £250 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
  2. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the loss of gas supply to the property.
  3. A further £150 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
2. Provide the resident with a copy of the consultant surveyor’s inspection report of 14 September 2023.
3. Ensure it has appropriately reimbursed the resident for additional electricity costs incurred since 3 February 2023 due to the loss of gas supply. A breakdown of reimbursements paid and the periods they cover should be provided to this Service.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy to ensure that it provides clear guidance on awards for poor complaint handling. Consideration should be given to implementing an additional ‘compensation calculation methodology’ for this.