Islington Council (202308344)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308344

Islington Council

16 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning her annual gas safety check.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 31 September 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, and the landlord is a local authority.

Complaint policy

  1. The landlord’s policy stated that it operates a 2 stage process, with responses sent within 10 and 20 working days at stages 1 and 2 respectively.

Scope of investigation

  1. The day before the resident made her gas safety check complaint, she made a separate complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in her property. The resident’s damp and mould complaint described the health issues that her, and her children were experiencing. The resident also referred her damp and mould complaint to the Service. The complaint was determined by the Ombudsman on 15 March 2024, and findings of maladministration were made for the landlord’s handling of the issue, and for its complaint handling (case 202308362). As such, any references in this report to the resident’s damp and mould complaint are for the purpose of context only.
  2. The resident’s gas safety check complaint also referred to the impact on her, and her children’s health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general time, trouble, and distress which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would complete its annual gas service and safety checks at her property on 21 March 2023. On 23 March 2023 the landlord sent a ‘first reminder’ to the resident that referred to its previous letter. It said that it would now be undertaking the service on 4 April 2023.
  2. On 4 April 2023 the resident made her complaint to the landlord concerning the gas service that its contractor had completed in her property that day. The resident’s key points were as follows:
    1. She said that she had gone to investigate after she had heard the attending engineer let out a “loud gasp”. She said that the engineer had showed her that the carbon monoxide (CO) cap had been left off the top of her boiler, and had asked her when the boiler had last been touched. The resident said that she told the engineer that the boiler had not been touched since the previous years’ service.
    2. She described how the engineer had explained to her how dangerous it was to leave the CO cap off, and that perhaps the previous engineer had been rushing as it was difficult to park in the area. She said that the engineer then tested her CO detector, completed the rest of the service, and told her that everything was safe.
    3. She stated that she and her 2 children had been experiencing health issues over much of the prior 18 months that they had lived in the property. She said that she had previously attributed the health issues to the damp and mould, which she had made a separate complaint about. She described how “concerned and scared” she was that CO could still be in their systems, and asked “please can someone contact me urgently”.
  3. On 3 May 2023 the resident protested to the landlord that her complaint had concerned “serious dangerous information about the gas safety check”, but that the landlord had still not responded.
  4. On 12 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the lateness of its response, and offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay. The landlord’s further key points were as follows:
    1. It stated that its contractor’s annual gas service had reported no defects, and attached a copy of its gas safety record. It said that for the resident’s assurance it was arranging for its own gas quality assurance officer to inspect her boiler.
    2. It sympathised that the resident and her family had been unwell, and advised that she contact her doctor.
    3. It said that its stage 1 investigation had been “inconclusive”, as “all parties investigating this complaint were not present during the alleged incident”. It advised how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  5. On 16 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she could not understand why the engineer had not reported back what he had found. She described the health issues that she and her family had experienced over the last year, and that CO poisoning could be fatal. She stated that she did not feel that the landlord had taken her complaint seriously, that the incident had been “brushed aside”, and that it had been made to seem acceptable that this incident could happen. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 2 days later.
  6. On 23 May 2023 the landlord asked its gas servicing contractor to clarify what had happened at the resident’s annual check, regarding what it thought was likely to be the “flue gas sampling cap”.
  7. On 24 May 2023 the contractor told the landlord that it had spoken with the engineer shortly after he had left the resident’s property on 4 April 2023. It said that the engineer had explained that he had removed the cap to complete a test, but had then been briefly unable to find it. The engineer had said that he had asked the resident if she had moved it, but had then found it and put it back on. The contractor said that the engineer was apologetic, as he thought that the resident may have believed that the cap had been missing the whole time, and that he had left her with the wrong understanding. The contractor said that a family member of the resident had called it later that day. It said that it had clarified to the family member what had happened, and had explained that if the cap had been off the whole time, the resident’s CO alarm would have been sounding constantly.
  8. On 25 May 2023 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows:
    1. It assured the resident that her complaint had been “treated with the utmost seriousness”. It said that its lack of medical expertise, and the absence of any medical evidence, meant that it could not conclude that the health issues that she had described were due to CO poisoning.
    2. It referred to its gas safety check letter that it had sent to the resident on 9 March 2023, and its need to send her a further letter 2 weeks later after it did not hear from her. It stated that given the duration of the health symptoms that the resident had described, it was unclear why she had not responded to its letters.
    3. It said that it was reasonable to expect that its letters could have prompted the resident to consider that that there may be an issue with her gas that was contributing to her poor health. It stated that “you have not made mention of any correlation between the letters and your health, only what was allegedly found by the gas engineer”.
    4. It confirmed that the resident’s CO detector was in good order, and would have picked up any leaks. It relayed the events described to it by its contractor the previous day, which it said that its contractor had explained to her family member on the day of the gas service.
    5. It sympathised with the resident’s health issues but concluded that “it is unlikely your symptoms were caused by carbon monoxide poisoning”. It said that it hoped that its recent gas safety check had put her mind at rest.
    6. It stated that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint, but offered her £50 compensation for the time and trouble to resolve the issue. It referred the resident to the Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s complaint expressed her health fears for her and her children, and made a request for the landlord’s urgent contact. The landlord’s stage 1 response was significantly delayed, and followed an inadequate investigation. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately clarified the events that had led to the resident’s complaint, but took a somewhat accusatorial tone that lacked empathy. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident was not proportionate to the extent of its failings. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and made a compensation order to that regard.
  2. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 4 April 2023 and having described the events of her gas safety check and her health fears, asked that “please can someone contact me urgently”. The resident found it necessary to chase the landlord for its complaint response 1 month later. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it had made any effort to contact the resident in the intervening period. The landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s urgent request for contact would have further compounded her concerns, and distress. The landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, were therefore unreasonable.
  3. The landlord took 26 working days to issue the resident its stage 1 response. It therefore failed to act in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) or its own policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify with its contractor what had occurred at the resident’s gas safety check as an integral part of its stage 1 investigation. Instead, the landlord failed to do this until stage 2 of its process, which meant that it was only able to describe its stage 1 investigation as “inconclusive”.
  4. It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 1 response to express sympathy that the resident had been unwell, and to attempt to offer her some reassurance by providing her with the gas safety record, and arrangement of its own inspection. It was also reasonable for the landlord to apologise for its delayed response, and to offer the resident compensation. However, the landlord’s failure to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns with its contractor, understandably left her feeling that it had not taken her complaint seriously, and that it had been ”brushed aside”.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint escalation request, the landlord contacted its contractor to investigate her concerns. It is both unreasonable, and unclear why it took 50 days from the resident making her complaint for the landlord to do this, particularly given the fears that she had expressed.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident in a timely manner and, while it stated that it had not upheld her complaint, it did make her a further offer of compensation. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord’s response appeared to cast doubt over her health concerns with its references to her lack of response to its March 2023 letters.
  7. The resident’s complaint had explained that, prior to her gas service, she had attributed her household’s health issues to the damp and mould that she had separately complained about. As such, aside from being unempathetic and poor complaint handling practice, the landlord’s assertions failed to consider the facts of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response was therefore unreasonable.
  8. The landlord offered the resident a total of £75 compensation for its delayed stage 1 response, and her time and trouble to resolve the issue. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for urgent contact, inadequate stage 1 investigation, delayed stage 1 response, and accusatorial stage 2 letter, would have unduly added to her time, trouble, and distress. As such, and as above, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the impact on the resident of its complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation, in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning her annual gas safety check.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had responded to the resident’s request for urgent contact, and issued it stage 1 complaint response well outside of the timeframe of either the Code, or its own policy.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 investigation failed to take the basic necessary steps to establish the facts of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued in a timely manner but rather than appropriately empathise, appeared to cast doubts over the resident’s reported health fears.
  3. The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident was not proportionate to those failings.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Pays the resident £250 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by its identified failings.
    3. This amount replaces the landlord’s compensation offer of £75 (if any part of that offer has already been paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £250).
  2. Additional compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears on the resident’s rent account.
  3. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.