Peabody Trust (202205160)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205160

Peabody Trust

22 December 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about gas servicing and the management of appointments.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house and the resident has an assured tenancy which began on 14 February 2011.
The landlord’s records show that the resident is vulnerable due to a medical condition. The resident has advised the landlord that he is unable to attend morning appointments due to health reasons.

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement includes the obligations and expectations regarding access to the resident’s property (under section 2.6 and 3.12), and explains that:
1. The resident must allow access for the landlord’s staff, agents, contractors or statutory undertakers to carry out repairs, other works and annual servicing, for example gas safety checks.
2. Reasonable notice will be given if the landlord needs to enter the resident’s home to inspect it or to carry out work.
3. If access is not provided, legal action may be taken, or, in an emergency (for example where someone’s safety is at risk), the landlord may force entry into the property.
4. If it has to force entry to carry out an emergency repair or check, the home will be made secure immediately and arrangements would be made to repair any damage caused.

The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (GSIUR)

Under regulation 36 of the GSIUR, landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
Regulation 36A of the GSIUR includes the following provisions:
1. “Where a safety check of an appliance or a flue made in accordance with regulation 36(3)(a) or (b) is or was completed within the period of two months ending with the deadline date, that check is to be treated for the purposes of regulation 36(3)(a) and (b) as having been made on the deadline date”.
2. The ‘deadline date’ means the last day of the 12-month period within which the check is or was required to be made.

The Approved Code of Practice and Guidance – The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (GSIUR) as amended by the 2018 regulations

The amended Approved Code of Practice and Guidance provides information on how to meet the requirements of the GSIUR and includes the following:
1. Clause 304 of the Approved Code states that the changes set out in regulation 36A aim to offer more flexibility in the gas safety checking regime – however, it is not compulsory for landlords to take advantage of this change. If they prefer, landlords can continue with their current regime of gas safety checking, as long as it meets the legal minimum requirements as set out in regulation 36.
2. Clause 311 indicates that where a gas safety check is carried out less than 10 months after the previous gas safety check, this will have the effect of ‘resetting the clock’ and the deadline date will now be 12 months from the date of this latest check.
3. Clause 312 states that where the property remains tenanted it is an offence to have no current gas safety check record in place.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord and its contractor on 10 November 2020 and asked the contractor to cancel an appointment he had been offered for the contractor to carry out the annual gas safety check on 20 November 2020. He stated that the deadline date for the safety check was in January 2021 and therefore he wanted an appointment in January 2021.
The contractor wrote to the resident on the same day (10 November 2020) and confirmed that it had cancelled the appointment. The contractor requested the resident to suggest an alternative appointment date as the gas safety check had to take place by 16 January 2021.
The resident replied on 10 November 2020 and stated that the deadline date for the gas safety check (which he referred to as the ‘retained date’) was 18 January 2021, not 16 January 2021. He advised the contractor that the deadline date should be based on the date of the gas safety check in 2019, rather than on the date the gas safety check was done in 2020. In response to the resident’s email, the contractor sent the resident a copy of the Landlord Gas Safety Record (LGSR) relating to the gas safety check carried out on 16 January 2020. The landlord’s internal records show that the LGSR stated that the next gas safety check was due on 16 January 2021.
On 12 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that he wished to continue with his complaint because:
1. He felt that the contractor had sent him the previous LGSR because they did not understand or were ignoring the gas safety regulations.
2. He stated that the deadline for the gas safety check was preserved from the year before (i.e. 2019) as per the gas safety regulations.
3. He stated that a landlord could arrange a gas safety check within 2 months of the deadline date, but in that case the previous year’s deadline date would be retained. He stated that this system had been introduced in 2018.
4. He advised, therefore, that although the last gas safety check had been completed on 16 January 2020, his retained gas safety deadline each year remained 18 January. This was because the date of the gas safety check in 2019 was 18 January 2019.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2020 and provided further information to illustrate his point that the deadline for his gas safety check should be 18 January. He asked the landlord to treat his previous email as a stage one complaint.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided him with a revised LGSR for the gas safety check that had been completed on 16 January 2020. The landlord advised that the LGSR had been corrected and now showed that the deadline for the gas safety check was 18 January 2021. The landlord’s internal records indicate that it had asked the contractor for an explanation of why the deadline date had been incorrectly shown on the original LGSR.
The resident replied on the same day (18 November 2020) and stated that although the landlord had sent him a corrected LGSR, this had not resolved his complaint. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 19 November 2020 and stated that the landlord had not addressed the points within his complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2020 to acknowledge his stage one complaint and stated that the resident would receive a reply within 10 working days. However, the resident replied on 29 November 2020 to confirm that he had raised the matter on 10 November 2020 and made a formal complaint on 12 November 2020. He reiterated that the deadline for the gas safety check was 18 January 2021 and therefore he wanted to arrange an appointment closer to this date. He stated that he had been offered an appointment for the morning of 4 December 2020 and would not be available on this day. He also questioned why the contractor had offered him a morning appointment when he had repeatedly advised the contractor that he was unavailable for morning appointments.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 December 2020 with its stage one reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in replying to the resident’s stage one complaint and offered him £15 compensation.
2. The landlord explained that the resident’s initial contact was logged as an expression of dissatisfaction and in response the landlord had sent him a copy of the corrected LGSR showing the due date of 18 January 2021.
3. The landlord stated that its policy was to book appointments 2 months in advance of the deadline date, which is why the resident had been given an appointment in November 2020.
4. The landlord agreed to note on its system that the resident had requested an appointment nearer the deadline date and therefore it would ask its contractor to book a new appointment. However, the landlord explained that the appointment would have to be on a date that was at least “a few weeks” before the deadline date.
5. The landlord accepted that the contractor had incorrectly recorded a deadline date of 16 January 2021 on the LGSR and the contractor had repeated the error when it had written to the resident.
6. The landlord apologised for the errors relating to the deadline date and offered the resident £20 compensation.
On 14 December 2020, the contractor exchanged emails with the resident in order to agree a new appointment date. The contractor and the resident agreed that the new appointment would be on the afternoon of 11 January 2021 (the contractor had offered a morning slot on this day but the resident had explained that he was unavailable for morning appointments).
On 15 December 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to explain that he did not wish to make a stage 2 complaint at that point because he was monitoring the contractor’s handling of the new gas safety appointment. The landlord replied on 16 December 2020 to confirm that it would wait to hear from the resident before progressing his complaint to stage 2 of the process.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the contractor on 23 December 2020 and advised that he had received a further letter from the contractor stating it had made an appointment to carry out the gas safety check on 4 January 2021. He advised that he was unavailable on 4 January 2021 and intended to keep the previously arranged appointment of 11 January 2021. The resident also stated that since November 2020, 3 operatives had visited his property at times he had said he was unavailable. He stated that he had also received a “threatening letter” advising him that he was being given a final appointment.
On 23 December 2020, the contractor wrote to the resident and confirmed that the appointment had been booked for 11 January 2021. The letter explained that the resident should still expect to receive automatically generated appointment letters up until the confirmed appointment date and in order to prevent an operative attending on these dates, the resident should contact the contractor to cancel the alternative appointments.
On 6 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that despite making an appointment for the gas safety check to be done on 11 January 2021, he had found a note dated 30 December 2020 pinned to his front door. The note stated that the landlord’s representatives would force entry to the property on 12 January 2021 in order to carry out the gas safety check.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the contractor on 7 January 2021 to ask why the note had been pinned to the resident’s door and asked the contractor to confirm that the appointment was still booked for 11 January 2021. The contractor responded on 11 January 2021 and confirmed that the appointment was still booked to take place that day and that the note had been pinned to the resident’s door as a precaution in case he did not provide access.
The contractor’s records show that the resident kept the appointment and the gas safety check was carried out on 11 January 2021. The LGSR showed that the next check was due before 18 January 2022.
On 13 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a stage 2 complaint. The main points included in the complaint were:
1. The resident said he wanted to keep January as the month for the landlord to carry out the gas safety check, rather than the landlord pushing forward the date each year.
2. He had initially asked for a January appointment but this had not been offered.
3. He had been sent an LGSR with an incorrect deadline date by the contractor. The landlord had then sent him a revised LGSR without an apology or explanation.
4. The resident had continued to receive emails with different appointments, despite requesting an appointment in January 2021.
5. Some of the contractor’s visits had been in the mornings when he was asleep and on one occasion he had to arrange for a friend to be present in the morning because of a threatened forced entry.
6. He had received a letter stating that as he had failed to respond, the landlord would force entry to the property on 12 January 2021. The resident’s view was that he should not have been threatened with a forced entry before the gas servicing deadline date.
7. The resident stated that he had always responded to emails from the contractor.
8. The resident said that the landlord and contractor had “harassed” him for weeks with incorrect information.
9. He stated that the contractor had continued to book morning appointments, despite being asked not to do so because of health reasons. The resident advised that he was unhappy that the computer system could not record such information.
10. The resident stated that the landlord’s stage one reply had been inadequate and nothing had changed in terms of the management of the gas safety checks.
11. The resident confirmed that the appointment on 11 January 2021 had been kept by him and there were no problems with the contractor carrying out the gas safety check.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 February 2021 with its stage 2 reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that it had changed its gas safety checks policy in May 2019, so that checks could be done up to 2 months before the deadline date in order to retain the same deadline date the next year.
2. The gas safety check had taken place on 11 January 2021 and therefore the deadline for next year’s check would be 18 January 2022.
3. The contractor had offered the resident a January appointment on 14 December 2020.
4. Although the deadline date for the safety check had been 18 January 2021, effectively the last available date for the contractor to carry out the check was 16 January 2021 because 17 January 2021 was a Sunday.
5. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s initial email in November 2020 had been dealt with as an enquiry rather than a complaint.
6. The landlord said that it had not seen a copy of the LGSR with the incorrect deadline date of 16 January 2021 and asked the resident to provide a copy.
7. The landlord explained that if an appointment was made close to the deadline date, then its policy was to pin a note to the front door and send letters even if an appointment had been agreed. This was done as a safeguard to ensure the resident provided access. The policy meant that even if a resident said they were unavailable for an appointment on a particular date, the contractor would still attend.
8. The landlord said it was difficult to note requirements, such as ‘morning appointments only’ because of the volume of checks the landlord was required to arrange. Residents could phone to change an appointment once it was received.
9. The landlord stated that the letters were strongly worded because of the risks involved if the gas safety checks were not carried out.
10. The landlord stated that the resident could avoid anxiety by arranging an earlier appointment for the gas safety check.
11. The landlord accepted that it should have explained the process more clearly to the resident in its stage one response. Also, the landlord accepted that the resident should not have been advised that an appointment could be made closer to the deadline date.
12. The landlord reoffered the £35 compensation it had offered in the stage one reply, but said it did not consider there had been significant failures within the current process.
The resident wrote to this Service on the same day (4 February 2021) and stated the following:
1. The last date the check had to be done was 18 January not 17 January as stated in the landlord’s stage 2 reply. The check could have been done on 18 January 2021.
2. The resident confirmed that the gas safety regulations defined a month as a calendar month, not 28 days as the resident had previously thought. Therefore, the contractor’s previous offer of an appointment on 20 November 2020 had been within the 2-month period prior to the deadline date.
3. The resident had immediately responded to the contractor on 10 November 2020 and requested a January appointment.
4. The landlord’s staff member had phoned the resident and had incorrectly advised the resident that the deadline date for the gas safety check was 16 January 2021.
5. The resident repeated that his initial enquiry had been a complaint because he had clearly stated this in the email.
6. He repeated that he had been sent an incorrect LGSR and then had been sent the correct version without an explanation or apology.
7. The resident questioned the contractor’s process of visiting a resident when the resident had advised that they would not be at home. Also, he stated that, in his view, the automatically generated letters should be switched off once a resident makes an appointment. He stated that the unnecessary letters had caused him anxiety.
8. The resident stated that the contractor’s system should be capable of recording requests, such as ‘no morning appointments’.
9. The resident said he did not wish to deal with the gas safety check over the pre-Christmas period.
10. The resident rejected the landlord’s compensation offer of £35, which he felt was inadequate.
On 27 April 2021, the resident wrote to this Service and explained that he wished to complain about the landlord’s management of the last gas safety check. He said the landlord had not taken on board issues raised in his previous complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The events relating to the January 2020 gas safety check and earlier gas safety checks were investigated by the Ombudsman under a previous case (201912330). Therefore, this Service cannot consider these matters as part of this investigation because the Ombudsman is unable to consider matters it has already decided upon.
The events relating to subsequent gas safety checks have also not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. In this case, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 February 2021 and therefore did not cover the later gas safety checks.
The Ombudsman has therefore focussed its investigation on the gas safety check carried out in January 2021 and the events leading up to, or related to, this gas safety check.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about gas servicing and the management of appointments

The GSIUR states that if a landlord carries out the annual gas safety check within 2 calendar months of the deadline date, it will be treated as though it was carried out on the deadline date. In this case, the landlord initially offered the resident an appointment for the gas safety check to take place on 20 November 2020. The appointment offered by the contractor was reasonable because it was in line with the landlord’s policy, which stated that it would offer appointments 2 months in advance of the deadline. Also, as the appointment was within 2 months of the deadline of 18 January 2021, the appointment offered by the contractor meant the resident would retain the deadline of 18 January for the next year’s gas safety check.
On 10 November 2020, the resident asked the contractor to cancel the appointment and to book one nearer to the deadline in January 2021. The contractor replied on the same day to confirm that it had cancelled the 20 November 2020 appointment. The contractor asked the resident when he would be available as the safety check needed to be done by 16 January 2021. This was a missed opportunity for the contractor to explain clearly to the resident the landlord’s policy of carrying out gas safety checks 2 months in advance of the deadline. This might have helped the resident to understand why he had been offered a November appointment. The landlord later stated in its stage 2 reply that it should not have advised the resident that the appointment could be made closer to the deadline date. It was therefore a shortcoming that the contractor had not clearly explained the policy and had advised the resident that he could book an appointment nearer to the deadline date.
The landlord also missed an opportunity to communicate its policy when it sent the resident a corrected version of the LGSR showing that the correct deadline for carrying out the gas safety check was 18 January 2021. The LGSR was sent without an explanation or apology for the error on the previous version. This was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord because although it had provided the resident with the correct LGSR, it did not explain the reason for the previous error and therefore did not provide the resident with the clarity he was seeking.
The evidence shows that the contractor had offered the resident a new appointment date for the morning of 4 December 2020. It was reasonable for the contractor to offer a further appointment to the resident as he had not yet agreed an appointment. Although the appointment was in December 2020 rather than in January 2021 as the resident had requested, the date offered was still within the 2-month period prior to the deadline and was therefore consistent with the landlord’s policy. Given the risks involved in obtaining access for gas safety checks, it was reasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion for the landlord to offer an earlier appointment in December 2020 rather than waiting until January 2021. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 November 2020 and rejected the appointment as he stated he was unavailable on this day.
The resident stated in his email dated 29 November 2020 that the contractor had visited on 3 occasions to carry out the gas safety check. Although the resident had requested an appointment closer to the deadline date, as the contractor had not yet agreed an appointment with the resident, it was entitled to continue attempting to carry out the gas safety check. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was not unreasonable for it to carry out the 3 visits mentioned by the resident. The landlord’s priority was to carry out its legal obligations by carrying out the gas safety check prior to the deadline and therefore was attempting to complete it as early as possible within the 2-month period.
The landlord explained in its stage one reply that its policy was to book appointments 2 months in advance of the deadline, which is why the resident had been given the initial appointment in November 2020. The landlord also explained that any new appointment would have to be at least a few weeks before the deadline date. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain its policy to the resident so that he understood why he had been offered the November 2020 appointment.
The stage one reply stated that the January 2021 appointment could not be too close to the deadline date. This was a reasonable safeguard on the part of the landlord to ensure it would still have time to meet its legal obligations in the event that the resident could not keep the appointment.
The stage one reply also acknowledged that the contractor had incorrectly recorded a deadline date of 16 January 2021 on the LGSR and had repeated the error when writing to the resident. The landlord apologised for the errors and offered compensation of £20. The errors had caused the resident to write to the landlord to question the deadline date and he had also included this as part of his complaint. It was therefore right for the landlord to acknowledge the errors, apologise and offer compensation to put things right.
The sum offered by the landlord was within the range outlined in its compensation and remedies policy for service failures where there has been a low impact. In this case, there was only a short period (approximately a week) between the contractor sending the incorrect LGSR and the landlord sending the correct version. The landlord also apologised in its stage one reply shortly after sending the revised LGSR. Finally, there is evidence to indicate that the landlord raised the discrepancy with the contractor to prevent similar issues in the future. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate redress for the LGSR errors taking all of the circumstances into account.
Following the landlord’s stage one reply, the resident was offered an appointment by the contractor for the gas safety check to be done on 11 January 2021. The date would therefore have enabled the landlord to comply with its legal obligations. However, having agreed the appointment, the contractor wrote to the resident and offered an appointment for the check to take place on 4 January 2021 without adequately explaining the reason for this. The contractor also pinned a notice dated 30 December 2020 to the resident’s front door stating that it would force entry to the resident’s property on 12 January 2021. In the Ombudsman’s view, these actions were inappropriate because:
1. The resident had already agreed an appointment for the gas safety check to take place on 11 January 2021. The resident was therefore entitled to expect the contractor to honour the appointment and not to take any action to gain access in the meantime.
2. If the contractor had wanted to bring forward the appointment it should have discussed this with the resident.
3. The appointment on 11 January 2021 would still have given the contractor a week before the deadline to take further action if the resident had not given access. (The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have made an earlier appointment with the resident if it considered a week to be too close to the deadline).
The landlord’s gas safety policy, which was in operation at the time, stated that if access was not given to the contractor after 2 appointments, a letter would be hand-delivered to advise the resident that failure to provide access or contact the landlord could result in a lock change. However, in this case the resident had not failed to provide access in relation to any agreed appointments and therefore it was inappropriate for the landlord’s contractor to attach a notice to the resident’s front door stating that it would force entry if the resident had not given access by 12 January 2021. The Ombudsman understands the need for landlords to use strongly worded notices and letters where residents are not cooperating, however, in this case the resident had agreed an appointment with the landlord. The notice and additional letters caused the resident additional anxiety, which he mentioned in his email dated 4 February 2021 to this Service.
The resident advised the landlord that he was unable to attend morning appointments because of health reasons. However, he was offered an appointment for the check to take place on the morning of 4 December 2020. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it was difficult to record such requirements due to the number of checks it carries out. However, the landlord’s gas safety policy, which was in operation at the time, stated that the landlord “will make all reasonable efforts to offer appointments at a time to suit tenants’ needs and will, in all cases, take into account the needs of vulnerable residents”. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to record and adjust its service to take into account the resident’s requirement for afternoon appointments was inappropriate as it was not consistent with its policy. It is also not consistent with the Regulator of Social Housing’s Home Standard, which states: “registered providers shall…provide a repairs and maintenance service to homes and communal areas that responds to the needs of, and offers choices to, tenants…”
The resident stated on various occasions to the landlord, for example in his stage 2 complaint, that each year the landlord had attempted to push forward the deadline for carrying out the gas safety check. However, as the landlord had offered an initial appointment which was less than 2 months prior to the deadline date, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord was attempting to bring forward the deadline date. The purpose of using the 2 month period according to the Health and Safety Executive’s website is to avoid “landlords waiting until the last minute and not gaining access, or having to shorten the annual cycle check to comply with the law”.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found that there were failings in the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about gas servicing and the management of appointments. In particular:
1. Neither the landlord nor its contractor adequately explained to the resident at an early stage that if the gas safety check was completed within 2 months of the deadline, it would not affect the deadline date for the following year.
2. After having agreed the 11 January 2021 appointment, it was inappropriate for the contractor to bring forward the appointment to 4 January 2021 without explanation or to pin a notice to the front door.
3. When offering appointments the landlord (through its contractor) failed to take into account that the resident had requested it not to book morning appointments due to health reasons.
In terms of mitigation, the Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord had acted reasonably by trying to arrange the gas safety check during November and December 2020 but the resident refused as he wanted an appointment in January 2021. Therefore, taking all of the factors mentioned into account, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure by the landlord and has ordered compensation of £100 to put things right. The sum is within the range identified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures where there has been distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The sum ordered by the Ombudsman is in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy, which was in operation at the time, stated that it had a 2-stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one complaints would receive a reply within 10 working days. Where it was not possible to provide the resident with a response within this timeframe, an explanation would be provided, along with an update on the progress and an indication of when they could expect a response.
2. Stage two complaints would be acknowledged within 3 working days of the escalation request and a full response provided within the next 15 working days.
The resident submitted an initial enquiry to the landlord and its contractor on 10 November 2020 about an appointment he had received for the annual gas safety check. He wrote again to the landlord and the contractor on the same day and stated that the deadline date for the gas safety check was 18 January 2021, rather than 16 January 2021 as had been quoted by the contractor. In response, the contractor sent the resident a copy of the LGSR on 12 November 2020. As the resident had made an initial enquiry on 10 November 2020 about the gas safety check, it was appropriate that the landlord had treated this as a service request rather than a complaint.
The resident then wrote to the landlord on 12 November 2020 and stated that he wished to continue with his complaint. He expressed his dissatisfaction that the contractor had sent him a copy of last year’s LGSR and felt that the contractor did not understand the regulations or was ignoring them. He ended his email by stating that he awaited the landlord’s response to his complaint. Although the landlord acknowledged the email on 13 November 2020, it did not show that the email would be treated as a stage one complaint. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the service. The landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s email as a complaint delayed him receiving a formal response to the points he had raised and it prompted him to write to the landlord on 16 November 2020 and ask for the matter to be dealt with as a stage one complaint.
Although the landlord had not treated the email as a formal complaint, it did reply to the resident on 18 November 2020 and provided him with a revised LGSR showing the correct deadline date of 18 January 2021. However, the resident replied on the same day (18 November 2020) and advised the landlord that he had submitted a complaint and the landlord had not addressed the points in the complaint. The landlord therefore sent its stage one reply on 11 December 2020, which was 21 working days after receiving the resident’s email on 12 November 2020. The landlord therefore did not respond within the appropriate timescale of 10 working days for stage one complaints.
The landlord apologised in its stage one reply for the delay in replying and offered the resident £15 compensation. However, the apology and compensation offer were based on the reply only being 3 days late, which had been calculated from the date it had acknowledged the stage one complaint on 24 November 2020.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 13 January 2021 and the landlord replied on 4 February 2021, which was 16 working days later. The landlord therefore replied to the stage 2 complaint within the appropriate timescale for stage 2 complaints. The landlord reoffered the resident the sums offered at stage one (i.e. £20 for the errors made in the deadline date for the gas safety check and £15 for the delay in replying to the stage one complaint).
As the landlord had not treated the resident’s email of 12 November 2020 as a complaint and therefore did not reply within the appropriate timescale, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer of £15 to be proportionate redress. The Ombudsman has therefore decided that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Consequently, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £50. This sum is within the range identified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a service failure over a short duration, involving inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. The sum ordered by the Ombudsman is in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about gas servicing and the management of appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

After agreeing an appointment with the resident, the landlord (through its contractor) proceeded to book an earlier appointment and pin a notice to the resident’s front door without discussing the matter with him.
The landlord did not treat the resident’s email dated 12 November 2020 as a formal complaint and did not make a proportionate offer of redress to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the gas safety check appointments.
3. Pay the resident £50 for its complaints handling.