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

Octavia Housing (201913343)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913343

Octavia Housing

14 April 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 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:

 

  1. response to the gas leak reported in the resident’s home and;

 

  1. handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background and Summary of events 

 

Background 

 

2.     The resident is an assured tenant. The resident’s tenancy started on 23 May 2011. The property is a one bedroom flat located on the second floor of a Victorian house conversion.

 

3.     Clause 4 of the tenancy agreement (under section b) states that the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair and proper working order any installation it has provided to supply water, gas and electricity, for sanitation, and for space and water heating. This includes amongst other items, gas pipes.

 

4.     The landlord’s repair handbook confirms that it is responsible for heating and hot water systems as well as gas pipes (although it is stated that the gas supplier is responsible for some problems). Its repair policy states that ‘Emergency’ repairs will be provided within 24 hours from when the issue is reported and classes emergency repairs as those repairs that are needed to remove immediate danger to people, to make the property secure or to avoid flooding or major damage to the property. Further, it states appointments and work for ‘Urgent’ repairs, which it says are repairs that are needed to be done quickly but where there is no immediate health, safety or similar risk, will be completed within five working days.

 

5.     Section 3 of the landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Feedback policy states that a full response to a formal complaint will be provided within ten working days at stage one. Furthermore, it states that if a resident is not satisfied with the stage one response, a resident has ten working days to tell it that they want the stage one response reviewed and they must tell then if they want the stage one complaint to be reviewed by a Senior manager or by its Independent Complaints Panel. Section 3.2 states that a complaint it has already upheld at stage one cannot be taken forward to stage two (unless the resident disagrees with the level of any compensation offered).

 

6.     The landlord’s Compensation procedure states that where a room/s or services/s are unusable because of disrepair, after a specified time period it will offer payment in recognition of the inconvenience caused (section 4.4.1). For no hot water and kitchen out of use it says the amount payable is 20% of rent (after 5 working days and 72 hours respectively). Further, it states that it will provide gestures of goodwill where residents are unable to occupy the property (£15-£20/day per adult and £10-£15/day per child).

 

7.     The resident’s complaint relates to a gas leak within her property caused by the landlord’s repair contractor accidentally drilling into her gas pipe. It is noted that in her complaint to this Service dated 14 October 2020, the resident has detailed the impact of gas leak incident on her which she said was negligence on the part of the landlord. It is relevant to note here that it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to make a finding on whether the landlord (or its contractors) were negligent when carrying out the repair in question. Such legal matters would be for the Courts to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider whether the landlord has responded to the gas leak in an appropriate and reasonable way.

 

Summary of Events

8.     On 11 July 2019, the resident reported a gas leak after smelling gas after the landlord’s contractor left her property having repaired a floorboard. The resident has reported that she contacted the landlord who told her that it could not send anyone out to inspect the leak but provided the name of a gas company which she should contact. The gas leak was made safe by an emergency engineer from that company who turned off the gas supply on the same day. However, the resident was left without a gas supply meaning a lack of hot water or cooking facilities.

 

9.     The resident was in communication with the landlord by phone following the gas leak incident but there is a lack of evidence showing calls, or details of any calls, she had directly with the landlord. However, the landlord has submitted a timeline of her telephone contact with its heating contractor between 11 July 2019 up to when the gas pipe was replaced on 1 August 2019. This evidence suggests that the landlord’s heating engineer called at the property on 12 July 2019, as arranged but left a calling card when no one appeared to be in. Further, the timeline suggests the resident phoned again on 15 July 2019 and its engineer attended the same day but did not repair/replace the damaged gas pipe because the floorboards and carpets had not been removed to allow access to the damaged pipe. The timeline shows the landlord’s heating and repair contractors spoke with one another on 18 July 2019 regarding a joint visit on 19 July 2019 but this did not happen because the resident was unaware of the appointment. Furthermore, the timeline suggests the heating contractor tried to make contact with the resident again on 22 July 2019 but this attempt was unsuccessful. They called the resident again on 25 July 2019 and an appointment was agreed for both contractors to jointly attend on 1 August 2019 to effect the repair.

 

10. On 30 July 2019, the resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its contractor drilling through her gas pipe. She explained what had happened and the effect this had had on herself and her daughter. Amongst other things, she said the engineer who attended to make it safe had advised it was a gas leak “20 above lower explosive level” which could have blown up the house/block and caused fatalities. She complained that no one had attended on 12 July 2019 to fix the pipe, as arranged. She said that she received a call from the landlord’s repairs contractor on the morning of 19 July 2019 advising they would attend that afternoon but she had not been previously notified of this and had an appointment at this time. She was told someone would call to arrange to fix the pipe another time.  She said someone had called on 26 July 2019 and advised the repair would be made on 1 August 2019. The resident complained this only happened after she contacted external agencies. She stated that she has had no gas or hot water since 11 July 2019 and was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the matter. She said there had been a lack of emotional and financial support from the landlord resulting in her having to borrow money to buy food for herself and her daughter, putting her at substantial financial disadvantage. She also said the landlord denied her request for the housing officer to visit. The resident requested £10,000 in compensation for the inconvenience, emotional distress, nausea, headaches, dizziness, disorientation caused by the landlord’s safety breach.

 

11. On 1 August 2019, the gas pipe was repaired by the landlord and on 6 August 2019, the landlord sent its stage one response upholding the resident’s complaint. Within the response, it acknowledged the risk of an explosion caused by its operative drilling through the resident’s gas pipe and said the incident could have been avoided if the operative had lifted the floorboard to check the pipe before fixing it. It apologised for the distress caused and agreed it should have enquired about the resident’s needs after the gas was switched off on 11 July 2019. It said it should have looked into making temporary arrangements for her to have cooking facilities, such as a small electric cooker or microwave. It agreed that any gas leak was a serious matter and advised that discussions were taking place with the contractor at fault regarding health and safety arrangements being put in place in order to avoid this re-occurring in the future. Regarding no engineer attending on 12 July 2019, it said its contractor advised its engineer had called at the property but no one was in and so they left a card with the date and time. It also referred to the call made to the resident on 19 July 2019 regarding attending that day but said it did appreciate the resident’s point made about the time taken to finally repair the pipe. It offered the resident compensation of £622 for loss of amenities during the period she was without her gas supply 11 July 2019 to 1 August 2019 (£97 equating to a 20% reduction in her rent for 21 days from 11 July 2019 to 1 August 2019) and £15 per day per adult and £10 per day per child towards the cost of food over this timeframe, in accordance with its compensation policy.

 

12. On 20 August 2019, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) sent a letter to landlord on behalf of the resident advising they were in the midst of reviewing the landlord’s offer of compensation. They said the near-death experience had negatively affected the resident’s mental health and that they would write again once they had met with the resident on 28 August 2019. The CAB also raised a concern about the landlord disposing of the resident’s items that she had placed in the communal areas following the gas leak.

 

13. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage one response on 2 September 2019 stating that it was not taking the issue seriously. She advised that she was living in fear of developing an ailment due to the amount of gas inhaled and requested a copy of its compensation policy. The resident said she could not accept the offer of £622 as it does not cover her costs incurred for food and other inconveniences experienced (£651.35 incurred total). She requested the landlord to reimburse this amount and offer a measure of compensation for the emotional distress she and her daughter have suffered as a result of the gas leak incident.

 

14. On 3 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident requesting that she advise if she would like her stage two reviewed by a Senior Manager or Panel in accordance with its policy which provides that a complaint already upheld cannot be taken forward to stage two unless the resident disagrees with the level of compensation being offered. The landlord also responded to the CAB communication enclosing its compensation policy and reports by engineers employed by its gas contractor, as sought. The landlord advised that with regard to the resident’s belongings, it was in the process of investigating this matter and confirmed that the items had been returned to her. It said it was waiting for a response from the resident regarding escalation to stage two of its Complaint process.

 

15. The landlord sent reminders to the resident on 12 September 2019 and on 4 October 2019 asking her to provide a decision by 18 October 2019 regarding escalation to stage two and said that otherwise her complaint would be closed.

 

16. On 15 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord requesting for more time to respond to its request (by the week beginning 28 October 2019) due to unforeseen circumstances. The landlord replied on the same day advising her complaint would be kept open until 1 November 2019. The resident responded later that day advising the landlord that due to her medical condition, she has had to seek external assistance at times. She requested that it bear in mind that she found the gas leak very traumatic, that it has had a severe impact on her medical condition and that dealing with this matter and the landlord’s requests had not been easy.

 

17. On 12 November 2019, the landlord sent a letter to resident advising her complaint had been closed and it would be unable to re-open it.

 

18. The CAB wrote to the landlord on behalf of resident on 18 December 2019 requesting that it re-open resident’s complaint. It referred to the resident’s 15 October 2019 emails requesting more support to respond. It also explained that her daughter had fallen ill resulting in her cancelling two appointments she had arranged with it on 28 October 2019 and 5 November 2019. They added that the resident had a mental health condition and found it difficult to deal with correspondence. The letter advised the resident would like her case reviewed by the landlord’s Independent Complaint Panel.

 

19. The landlord responded to the CAB on 19 December 2019 advising that it was unable to reopen the resident’s complaint due to the amount of time that had elapsed and because the resident did not contact it in relation to the escalation of her complaint despite sufficient opportunities. It reiterated this position in its 2 March 2020 email to the resident. It also said it cannot locate any email from the resident dated 15 October 2019.

 

20. The resident sent a further letter to the landlord on 3 March 2020 advising that it had not taken into account her medical condition and the impact of the gas leak incident and she reiterated that she had to cancel two appointments with the CAB due to medical appointments for her daughter, who was unwell. She also referred her emails sent in October 2019 advising it of her situation. The resident said it was unreasonable for the landlord not to take all the points into account when considering her request to escalate to stage two/re-open her complaint.

 

21. On 14 October 2020, the resident referred her complaint to HOS. She explained events surrounding the gas leak and what the emergency engineer who attended had said about the likelihood of an explosion if she had switched on the light or lit the cooker which could have caused fatalities in her building. The resident also complained that the landlord had denied her requests for assistance and said that it only begin to deal with the situation and get the gas pipe fixed after she contacted external agencies including the social services, the council and medical practitioners. She said she suffered emotional, physical, financial and distress due to the landlord’s negligence and poor treatment. Further, the landlord’s offer of compensation did not cover her costs directly incurred or take into account her pain, trauma, sleepless nights, anxiety, aggravation and inconvenience, which she found unreasonable. She also complained about the landlord refusing to escalate her complaint to stage two after it closed her case. The Ombudsman confirmed to the resident on 15 October 2020 that her complaint will be investigated.

 

Assessment and findings 

 

The Landlord’s response to the gas leak reported in the resident’s home

 

22. The landlord did not send out an engineer to inspect the reported gas leak within 24 hours, contrary to its repair policy which requires emergencies to be attended within 24 hours. Further, the damaged gas pipe within the resident’s property was not repaired until 21 days later, on 1 August 2019. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the repair to the gas pipe constitutes an ‘urgent’ repair and therefore the landlord also failed to effect the repair within the five working day timescale stated in its repair policy. This Service acknowledges that the landlord made attempts to fix it earlier than this date; its heating engineer called at the property at 15:39 on 12 July 2019 as arranged but the resident did not answer the door. Nonetheless, it is clear the repair would not have been completed on this date even if the resident had been in as when the same contractor attended again on 15 July 2019, the repair could not be made. This was because they could not access the pipe underneath the floorboard and carpets due to the landlord’s repair contractor needing to lift beforehand to enable the heating engineer access to complete the repair.

 

23. Whilst the contractors arranged to jointly attend on 19 July 2019 to complete the repair, due to short-notice given to the resident, the proposed date/time was not convenient and did not go ahead. Eventually, this appointment was rescheduled on 25 July 2019 to take place on 1 August 2019.Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that whilst some of the delay was due to factors outside of the landlord’s control, it is responsible for a substantial proportion of the delay. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the lengthy time taken to fix the damaged gas pipe and accepts responsibility for some delay here.

 

24. The landlord also accepted that the gas leak itself was a serious matter which put the resident in danger and said that the accidental drilling through the pipe by its operative, was avoidable. As above, the Ombudsman will not determine on any allegation of negligence but we are able to consider if the landlord’s response to the incident was appropriate and reasonable. It is noted that it was the resident who reported the incident after realising there was a gas leak due to her smelling gas and feeling nauseous following a repair carried out by the landlord.  Further, the resident has complained about the lack of support provided by the landlord following the incident. Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman agrees that insufficient support was given to the resident by the landlord. This is because it did not offer her temporary (electrical) cooking facilities or an allowance for food or other inconveniences caused by the lack of hot water, gas supply and full use of her kitchen. The landlord acknowledges that it failed to enquire about the resident’s needs at the time. Also, it is clear the resident’s housing officer did not contact the resident or visit her at home in the immediate aftermath which the resident said she had requested. This Service considers this was reasonable in the circumstance and therefore finds the landlord’s service provided in this regard fell short of what could reasonably be expected.

 

25. Therefore, due to both the occurrence of the incident itself, the delay with repairing the gas pipe and the lack of support provided by the landlord immediately following the incident, this Service accepts that significant stress and inconvenience was caused to the resident. Due to the above-mentioned failures by the landlord, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord.  It is also acknowledged that medical evidence has been submitted by the resident (dated November 2019) which states she has some mental health concerns that were exasperated by the gas leak incident. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord knew about the resident having any health condition at the time of the gas leak incident, however it is noted that the landlord was made aware of this in correspondence from 30 July 2019 onwards. Based on the evidence, on balance, this Service considers the landlord failed to demonstrate that it has suitably considered the resident’s reports about the detrimental impact the gas incident had on her, including on her mental health (further discussed under Complaint Handling below).

 

26. In its Stage one response, the landlord offered compensation of £622 for the loss of amenities (hot water/gas) and cost of food due to loss of use of the kitchen (£97 equating to a 20% reduction of rent over 21 days and £525 for food based on £15 per adult and £10 per child).  Whist this Service finds these amounts to be in accordance with its compensation policy, due to our above findings, this Service considers that an additional payment for distress and inconvenience caused by service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the gas issue is justified and reasonable in the circumstances, yet this was not offered to the resident. However, it is relevant to note here that the Ombudsman will not make awards of damages as a court considering negligence might and similarly, we cannot link a possible deterioration in a resident’s health to the substantive issue.

 

Complaint handling

 

27. The landlord issued its Stage one response within ten working days of receiving the resident’s complaint as per its Complaints procedure. Within its response, the landlord advised it was upholding the resident’s complaint due to admitted failures on its part when handling the gas incident (as detailed above).

 

28. Its Complaints procedure states that where complaints are upheld, they will only be escalated to Stage two if the resident disagrees with the level of any compensation offered. Furthermore, it is also stated that the resident must advise (within ten working days) if they want the stage one response reviewed by a Senior manager or by its Independent Complaints Panel. It is noted that the landlord did not advise of the above process for escalation in its Stage one response (dated 6 August 2019) to the resident. The CAB did however write to the landlord (on behalf of the resident) within this timeframe (on 20 August 2019) advising that it “was in the midst of reviewing the contents” of its Stage one response and that it would write again after it had met with the resident on 28 August 2019. It was the resident however who then responded in her 2 September 2019 letter in which she stated she could not accept the compensation of £622 as it “did not cover her cost of the food etc” and said she would appreciate compensation for the emotional distress herself and her daughter had been caused. It is therefore clear from this response that the resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation however the landlord then emailed the resident on 2 September 2019 seeking clarification as to whether she wanted her complaint reviewed by a Senior manager or Independent Complaints Panel. It stated that once it had received her confirmation it would escalate her complaint to stage two. This was reasonable and in accordance with its Complaints procedure.

 

29. It is acknowledged that the landlord emailed the resident reminders on 12 September 2019 and 4 October 2019 and that following contact received from the resident on 15 October 2019, it agreed to extend the deadline (from 18 October 2019) to 1 November 2019. However, as it did not receive the confirmation requested by 12 November 2019, it closed the resident’s complaint and then refused the CAB and resident’s subsequent written requests for a review by its Independent Complaints Panel at Stage two. This was despite them explaining that the previous delay by the resident in responding was due to her daughter falling ill and as a result cancelling two appointments with the CAB as well as the impact of the gas leak incident on the resident’s own health. 

 

30. The Ombudsman acknowledges the circumstances surrounding the delay may have warranted the re-opening of the resident’s complaint by the landlord. Whilst we accept that the resident had been given a reasonable opportunity to provide the specific information requested by the landlord in its 3 September 2019 communication before closing the complaint on 12 November 2019 due to no further contact from the resident, if it had subsequently re-opened the case after being made aware of the resident’s personal circumstances, we are mindful it may have identified through its review, that a further measure of compensation for stress and inconvenience (as sought) was reasonable. Furthermore, it may also have increased its offer of £622 to £651.35 in order to cover the costs the resident said she directly incurred due to the gas leak incident.  Therefore, this Service consider that its unwillingness to show flexibility with its Complaint processes in this case resulted in the resident’s complaint and all the circumstances not being thoroughly considered or addressed by the landlord.

 

31. It is also clear that in its 19 December 2019 and 2 March 2020 responses, the landlord incorrectly stated it did not receive the resident’s email communications of 15 October 2019. It is noted that within the first email, the resident had asked the landlord for more time due to “unforeseen circumstances” and then explained in the second that the incident had had “a severe impact” on her medical condition. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord replied to the first email dated 15 October 2019 (this is when it agreed to extend the response time to 1 November 2019) and as such this Service is satisfied the landlord received these communications from the resident, despite indicating otherwise in its subsequent responses.

 

32. As mentioned above, this Service is also mindful that there is a lack of evidence of the landlord responding to advice provided in communications from the resident, the CAB and also the Council from 30 July 2019 onwards, regarding the resident having a mental health condition which had been exacerbated by the gas leak that had affected her ability to cope with communicating with the landlord. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds the landlord should have responded to this particular issue in its responses to communications from the resident/third parties acting on her behalf and taken more steps to reassure the resident in this regard.

 

Compensation

 

33. Due to the above service failures by the landlord when responding to the gas leak reported in the resident’s home, the Ombudsman finds that the total compensation of £622 based on loss of amenities and the cost of food, is insufficient recompense and a further amount of £150 shall be paid to the resident for the stress and inconvenience caused to her by its service failures.

 

34. Due to the above service failures by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman finds that a further amount of £50.00 in compensation shall be paid to the resident for stress and inconvenience caused by complaint handling errors.

 

Determination 

 

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the gas leak reported in the resident’s home.

 

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons 

 

37. The landlord failed to respond within 24 hours to the resident’s reports of a gas leak, as well as repair the resident’s gas pipe it had accidentally damaged which had caused a gas leak endangering the resident, within appropriate timescales. The landlord also failed to provide sufficient support to the resident in the aftermath of the incident or consider the detrimental impact the incident had on her.  Whilst it acknowledged service failings and offered compensation for the loss of amenities/cost of food and demonstrated learning about health and safety in its stage one response, it did not offer any compensation for stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. 

 

38. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage two due to a delay by the resident requesting the escalation. However, in refusing to re-open the complaint after the resident’s personal circumstances were explained, it demonstrated inflexibility surrounding its complaint handling processes. Further, as a result, it failed to address the resident’s stated dissatisfaction with the compensation offered and did not identify that an amount for stress and inconvenience was justified in the circumstances. There were also other errors by the landlord when dealing with the resident’s complaint and communications.

 

Orders and recommendations 

 

Order

39. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £822 within three weeks from the date of this report, comprising:

 

  1. £622 for loss of amenities/cost of food (previously offered);

 

  1. £150 additional compensation to reflect the further service failures identified with the landlord’s response to the gas issue;

 

  1. £50 for service failures identified with the landlord’s complaints handling.