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

Islington Council (202000921)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000921

London Borough of Islington

29 January 2021


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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:

–          An annual gas safety check.

–          A boiler repair.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant, renting a property from a Local Authority since 1992. The property is described as a self-contained, 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident shares the accommodation with her adult son.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states:

–          ‘you must allow the (landlord’s) officers, agents or utility services (for example gas service contractors carrying out safety inspections) to come into the property at all reasonable times’ to carry out repairs and safety checks, including servicing of gas appliances.

–          ‘the (landlord) must check any gas appliances regularly to make sure they are safe. We may be prosecuted if we do not do this. You will get at least 24 hours’ notice’.

  1. The landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide states the following:

–          ‘You (the resident) have a duty as stated in your tenancy agreement to give the (landlord) reasonable access to your home’.

–          Only in the following cases will further attempts to access the property (following a missed appointment) be pursued: where it is essential to gain access for Health and Safety reasons e.g. gas safety checks’.

–          ‘as stated in your tenancy conditions, you must give access to our gas engineers to carry out your annual gas safety check’.

  1. Under the landlord’s Housing Repair Guide different repairs are allocated varying response times. Urgent repairs, such as when a resident’s hot water or heating is affected, are responded to within 24 hours (referred to as a U24). Routine and non-urgent jobs are responded to within 20 working days and ‘the service will attend on the next available appointment’ (referred to as an R20).
  2. The landlord operates a 2 step Complaints Policy, although prior to being escalated to the Chief Executive Stage (Stage 2), the landlord’s policy states that the relevant department will first review its Stage 1 response. Regarding response times, the policy states:

–          Stage 1 responses should be issued within 21 calendar days.

–          Chief Executive Stage responses should be issued within 28 calendar days, excluding Bank Holidays.

Summary of Events

Gas Safety Check

  1. On 17 March 2020 the landlord sent the resident a letter advising that her annual gas safety check was due. An appointment was offered for 27 March. The landlord’s operative attended on 27 March 2020 although he left the property without having completed the safety check.
  2. On the same day, 27 March 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, advising that its operative had left abruptly and without explanation. The resident stated that she felt the landlord was always ‘finding fault’ with her and that she was being ‘victimized’.
  3. On 16 April 2020 the landlord sent the resident a reminder regarding the annual gas safety check as this was still outstanding.
  4. The landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 20 April 2020 and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed an appointment for the resident’s annual gas safety check had been ‘agreed’ for 27 March 2020. However, on attending the property, the landlord stated that the operative had attempted to ask the resident health and safety questions relating to Covid-19 prior to entering. The operative was apparently unhappy with the resident’s conduct and left. The landlord acknowledged that the version of events was disputed. However, as it was unable to verify what had happened after this point, it apologized that ‘the service you received did not meet your expectations’. The response also noted that the resident had since been sent a reminder letter for the outstanding gas safety check and gave advice on how to book a new appointment.
  5. On 20 April 2020, the resident requested her complaint be escalated:

–          She did not understand why she had been sent a reminder letter for the outstanding gas safety check.

–          She had not called the landlord to book an appointment on 27 March 2020.

–          She did not know why the operative had left the property on 27 March 2020 and accused the landlord of ‘concocting information’.

–          It should not have taken 21 days to issue the Stage 1 response.  

  1. The landlord issued a review of its Stage 1 response on 22 April 2020. It reiterated the explanation of why the operative left the resident’s property on 27 March 2020 and denied that it had concocted information. It also:

–          Clarified it had not implied that the resident called to make an appointment for the gas safety check, rather that it was assumed the appointment was ‘agreed’ as the resident had not contacted the landlord to rearrange it and was willing to provide access when the operative arrived.

–          Explained that a gas safety check reminder had been sent as the required annual check was still outstanding.

–          Apologized for the Stage 1 response being issued on 20 April 2020 rather than on 17 April 2020, explaining that this was down to IT issues.

–          Advised that the landlord had a 21 day target response time for Stage 1 complaints, which is related to an officer’s workload rather than the nature of the complaint.

  1. The resident made a further escalation request on 24 April 2020, for the same reasons. She added that she believed she was being sent reminder letters as the original gas safety check appointment on 27 March 2020 ‘has been erased’.
  2. The landlord sent second and final gas safety check reminder letters on 24 April 2020 and 15 May 2020 advising that the check must be completed by 27 May 2020. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2020 requesting that an appointment be booked. Following further emails from the resident, an appointment was subsequently booked for 17 June 2020 at which point the gas safety check was successfully completed.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 May 2020 advising that there would be a delay in beginning the Chief Executive Response investigation. The escalation request was not formally accepted until 12 June 2020, and the landlord apologized for the delay. The Chief Executive Stage response was issued on 10 July 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and advised that it considered there was no fault in the handling of the gas safety check process and that it had been appropriate to send the resident reminder letters.

Boiler Repair

  1. On 2 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and advised there was a fault with her boiler:

–          The boiler was ‘over generating’.

–          The hot water was ‘lukewarm’.

–          The heating was on all day.

The landlord responded the same day and raised an urgent 24 hour repair. However, as it was unable to contact the resident, the job was cancelled. The landlord raised a further 24 hour repair the following day, 3 May 2020, for an operative to attend on 4 May 2020 and emailed confirmation to the resident. An operative attended but was unable to gain access.

  1. In an email to the landlord on 7 May 2020, the resident advised that she believed 4 May 2020 was a Bank Holiday and had not expected any response from the landlord until 5 May 2020. She advised she did not like to check her emails over weekends and that she would not have provided access to the operative as there was no appointment. She complained about the landlord ‘dithering’ by trying to get an updated contact number instead of raising a repair order. 
  2. After further email correspondence between the resident and landlord, in which the resident indicated that she only wanted the landlord to attend via a booked appointment, the repair order was downgraded to a routine 20 day order and an appointment was booked for 15 May 2020. Two operatives attended the property, although the resident requested that one remain outside. It is not disputed that the resident then began taking pictures of the operative while he worked. Landlord records indicate the operative asked the resident to stop taking pictures of him, but she did not. The operative then left the property without completing the repair. The resident emailed the landlord following the attendance to advise that she had taken pictures as she wanted proof someone had attended, due to her belief that the landlord had erased the record of a previous gas safety check visit. She also queried why two vans had turned up and stated that the attendance had caused her to be ‘anxious’.
  3. On 21 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident offering an appointment for the week commencing 8 June 2020. The resident responded on 23 May requesting an appointment for 9 June, however this email was missed by the landlord.
  4. On 12 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord requesting assistance in booking an appointment as one was yet to be arranged. On the same day, an operative attended unannounced but the resident refused access.
  5. After further emails from the resident, an appointment was arranged for 1 July 2020 when an operative attended and identified a fault with the boiler that required new parts. The resident was left with temporary hot water and heating. After this the landlord attempted to complete the repair on 7 July 2020 but the resident again refused access as there had been no appointment booked. An appointment was then booked for 10 July 2020.
  6. The landlord issued its Chief Executive Stage response on 10 July 2020. This addressed the boiler repair issue, which was not part of the Stage One complaint. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord acknowledged that the boiler fault had been reported on 2 May 2020 and was not due to be resolved until 10 July 2020. However, it advised that this was not solely the landlord’s responsibility and was down to a ‘combination of reasons and misunderstandings’, meaning it was not practical ‘to apportion blame on either side’. The landlord did acknowledge some administrative errors, for which it apologized. The landlord also apologized for the resident not being given prior warning that two operatives would attend for the appointment on 15 May 2020. The landlord advised that it was routine for trainees to learn on the job but apologized for any anxiety caused and if this was inconvenient. It also advised that it could not explain why the operatives had arrived in separate vans, but suggested it was likely due to work commitments. However, it advised that this was not relevant to the appointment. Regarding unannounced visits that had been attempted, the landlord advised that these had happened once parts were available, and when it had been unable to contact the resident by phone. The landlord advised it believed the ‘cold calls’ would be helpful but apologized for any distress caused by the unannounced visits. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had expressed a wish to only be contacted by email in future. Escalation rights to the Ombudsman were offered by the landlord.
  7. An operative attended the appointment on 10 July 2020 but identified a further fault with the boiler. He advised that another part was required but that it should arrive by 13 July. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 July 2020 asking for an appointment to fit the new part and the landlord advised the gas team would be in contact. However, an operative again attended without an appointment on 14 July 2020 and the resident refused access.
  8. Following a further exchange of emails, on 17 July 2020 an appointment was booked for 22 July 2020. An operative duly attended on that date and the repair was completed successfully.

Assessment and Findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

Gas safety check

  1. The landlord has a legal obligation to conduct an annual gas safety check for all properties it manages. It wrote to the resident in March 2020 and advised that her annual check was due in May 2020. The landlord offered an appointment for 27 March 2020 and gave more than 24 hours’ notice as per its repairs guide. The letter contained four different contact methods for the landlord’s gas services in case the resident had need to contact them. This was appropriate.
  2. The terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement also make clear that tenants are expected to grant access to the landlord’s officers or agents ‘at all reasonable times’ for reasons including carrying out any safety checks, including servicing of gas appliances.
  3. It is not in dispute that the gas safety check was not completed on 25 March 2020 as the operative left the property without entering. Landlord records indicate that the operative was unhappy with the resident’s conduct while he was asking health and safety questions related to Covid-19. It was reasonable for the operative to leave the property if he felt uncomfortable. While the resident advised in her complaint and escalation requests that she did not understand why the operative left, the landlord provided a consistent version of events in its Stage 1 response and Stage 1 response review. The landlord acknowledged that it would not be possible to verify exactly what occurred but apologized to the resident if ‘the service provided did not meet your expectations’. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. The landlord investigated the issue, identified that it was not possible to confirm exactly what had occurred on the day in question and apologized for any role it might have played in service standards not reaching expectations. 
  4. Regarding the gas safety check reminder letters on 16 April, 24 April and 15 May 2020, the resident stated that she did not understand why these were sent. She stated that she believed this indicated that the original appointment on 27 March 2020 had been erased from the landlord’s records and was evidence of victimization by the landlord. However, as the safety check had not taken place on 27 March 2020, it was still outstanding. Given the landlord’s legal obligation to carry out such checks, it was appropriate for it to send further reminder letters and request that the resident contact it to make a new appointment. The landlord in its Stage 1 response and Stage 1 response review, also clarified that it did not erase details of the appointment on 27 March 2020 and continued to acknowledge that appointment. There is no evidence that it has at any point sought to deny that the appointment existed. 
  5. The Ombudsman appreciates the difficulty experienced by landlord’s in adhering to its legal obligation to complete annual gas safety checks on all its properties. These obligations sometimes require a landlord to take direct and formal actions in order to access a property to complete such checks. Clear and transparent reminder letters are standard procedure in such instances. The frequency and content of such reminder letters might be a source of dissatisfaction for recipients in some cases, however, this must be balanced with the landlord’s need to act in accordance with its legal obligations.
  6. Landlord records indicate the resident did not contact the landlord to rebook the gas safety check appointment until 23 May 2020 when she contacted the Chief Executive’s Office and the Corporate Complaints Team, rather than the gas service directly. It is noted that the landlord did not respond to this email until the resident chased a response on 29 May 2020 and the query was forwarded on to the gas service. A further email from the resident to the gas service requesting an appointment for 3 June 2020 was also not responded to and an appointment was finally booked following further contact with the Corporate Complaints Team on 12 June 2020. In its Chief Executive Stage response, the landlord apologized to the resident for any administrative errors which led to it missing emails regarding the gas safety check. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances as there is no evidence of a significant detriment to the resident resulting from the landlord’s acknowledged service failures.

Boiler repair

  1. On 2 May 2020 the resident reported a fault with her boiler. In her complaint, she stated that the landlord ‘dithered’ by trying to contact her rather than raising an order straightaway. However, records show:

–          The landlord raised an urgent 24 hour repair the same day. This was cancelled as it was unable to contact the resident by phone.

–          The landlord raised a further 24 hour repair order the following day and emailed the resident to advise an operative would attend on 4 May 2020. Unfortunately, the resident did not check her emails and the appointment did not therefore proceed.

  1. Records show that the landlord responded promptly and correctly by identifying the issue as an urgent repair in accordance with its repair guide. However, it was not able to contact the resident. The landlord therefore emailed the resident details of the second appointment, which was appropriate. However, the resident subsequently advised that she did not like to check her emails over weekends. As this was an emergency repair, it would be reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to check her email, particularly as during her complaint the resident made clear that she only wished to communicate with the landlord in this way and did not want to provide the landlord with an updated phone number. The landlord’s actions were appropriate, and the landlord cannot be held responsible for the initial delay in attending to the reported faulty boiler.
  2. After the landlord initially attempted to attend to the boiler repair, the resident indicated that she only wished for an operative to attend with a booked appointment. The repair order was therefore downgraded from an urgent 24 hour repair, where an appointment would not be possible, to a routine 20 working day repair. An appointment was booked for 15 May 2020, within the new repair target. This was reasonable, given the service demands outlined by the resident.
  3. On 15 May 2020, two operatives attended as booked and it is not disputed that the resident requested that one remain outside as they were unhappy at the situation. The operatives complied with this request. In its Chief Executive response, the landlord apologized for not having advised the resident in advance that a trainee would be attending and for any additional anxiety or inconvenience this had caused. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take. The landlord also advised that the fact two operatives attended in separate vans was not relevant to the appointment. This was reasonable as the operatives’ method of transport had no bearing on the work that was due to take place.
  4. It is not disputed that the repair was not completed on 15 May 2020 as the operative who had entered the property left when the resident refused to stop taking pictures of him. In its Chief Executive response, the landlord stated that its staff operate under a ‘Dignity for all’ policy and advised the resident that taking pictures of their operatives while working was ‘unwelcome’. This is reasonable as the landlord was entitled to balance its service delivery requirements with its duty of care to its staff.
  5. However, following the abandoned appointment on 15 May, the landlord then:

–          Missed two emails from the resident in which she requested an appointment.

–          Sent operatives to the address without an appointment.

In the landlord’s Chief Executive Response, the landlord apologized for any administrative errors in not replying to the resident’s emails and advised that this had been reported back to the relevant service. It also apologized, both in its complaint response and via email on 7 July 2020, for sending operatives without an appointment and for any upset that this caused. While this was not an unreasonable action by the landlord and it is noted that it was being proactive in trying to resolve the repair issue, given that the resident had previously requested operatives only attend with an appointment, the landlord should have noted this and acted accordingly to prevent further potential access issues. However, the apologies issued, and the feedback given to the relevant service were appropriate actions and reasonable redress in the circumstances. It is noted however, that this then happened again after the landlord’s email of 7 July 2020. 

  1. Following further emails between the resident and the landlord, an appointment was booked for 1 July 2020:

–          An operative identified an issue with the boiler and parts were ordered. The resident was left with temporary hot water and heating, which was reasonable.

–          A follow-up appointment was made for 10 July 2020 when the need for a further part was identified and the job was completed on 22 July 2020.

  1. The repair was completed 57 days after the resident’s initial report of a boiler fault, significantly outside the landlord’s 20-working day target for completing routine repairs. However, the landlord ensured that the resident had access to temporary heating/hot water during this time and it is evident that the resident’s actions contributed significantly to this period of delay. As acknowledged by the landlord, there were some delays in arranging follow up appointments due to emails being missed. However, the landlord fairly notes that the resident sent multiple emails to various teams and this caused confusion. Landlord records show that its initial response was prompt and attempts to attend were made on several occasions, but the resident refused access. On one occasion, when an appointment had been booked, an operative felt the need to leave due to the resident’s alleged behaviour.

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s annual gas safety check.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in its handling of the boiler repair. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord arranged an appointment to conduct the required gas safety check in good time and, when the check was not completed, reasonably sent reminders to the resident. The landlord’s actions, in attempting to ensure that the check took place, were reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord initially responded to the reported faulty boiler promptly and appropriately. There is no evidence that the landlord delayed its response to the repair. Although the repair was completed 57 days after the resident’s initial report, the landlord made reasonable efforts to attend to and complete the repair throughout this time – it also ensured that the resident had access to temporary heating/hot water supplies during this period of delay.

Recommendations  

  1. The landlord to add notes to the resident’s records to (excepting emergencies):

–          Only contact the resident via email.

–          Only attend the resident’s property for repair issues when there is a confirmed appointment.