Regenda Limited (202219696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219696

Regenda Limited

7 May 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:
   1. Reports that its contractors had disconnected the gas fire.
   2. Request to have the gas fire fixed and re-connected.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has mobility issues and suffers with back pain. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep the installation for the supply of heating and gas in proper working order.
3. On 1 November 2022, the landlord visited the resident to complete an annual gas safety check. During the visit, the landlord’s operatives found an issue with the isolation valve on the gas fire. The appliance was isolated, and a warning notice was issued to the resident. The resident wanted his fire reinstated and raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 December 2022.
4. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the fire had been capped for the resident’s safety. During its visit, the resident’s boiler was found to be in working order meaning that he had a primary heat source. It had considered the issues the resident had raised. A manager had considered the resident’s circumstances and had agreed to depart from its policy and repair the gas fire. In order for it to reinstate the fire it would however need to enter his property to complete a person-centred fire risk assessment. This was due to the concerns that had been reported to it and its duty to follow up on the concerns. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the matter to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. He said he wanted the gas fire reinstated, but he did not agree to the fire risk assessment. He considered the landlord was being malicious. He wanted compensation for the period that he had been unable to use the fire. He also wanted compensation for oil that was spilt from a chip pan by its contractors during the visit.
6. The landlord responded at stage 2. It said the disabling of the gas fire was not malicious and was done within the legal requirements of the annual gas safety legislation. The resident had not been left without heat or hot water as he had a full central heating system. It had provided a written apology for the oil that was spilled and subsequently cleaned up at the time.
7. It apologised for not addressing the point about its communication in its stage 1 response. It considered it had an open level of communication with the resident via email since 1 November 2022. It was satisfied that it had taken appropriate action to deal with the issues surrounding the residents gas service so did not uphold the complaint.
8. The resident contacted this Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about the gas fire and the fact it still remained disconnected.

Assessment and findings

Disconnection of the gas fire.

9. Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, 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.
10. The landlord’s own gas servicing policy confirms its legal responsibility to undertake a safety check and relevant maintenance of gas and heating systems including gas fittings and appliances. It also states that it may identify appliances that are not safe to use. If the resident owns the appliance, it will inform the resident that the appliance cannot be used, isolate it, and issue a warning notice to the resident. If the resident refuses the appliance to be isolated it will report this to cadent.
11. If the appliance is a gas fire owned by the landlord once deemed unsafe it will not be repaired or replaced. The landlord will offer the resident an option to have an electric fire and surround fitted on medical grounds or if no medical grounds for secondary heat source the redundant gas fire will be removed, and the opening sealed up.
12. The landlord was completing its annual gas safety check on 1 November 2022. During the visit it became apparent that there was a fault with the isolation valve on the gas fire which was an installation supplied by the landlord. The landlord has a duty to keep its gas installations in proper safe working order, so the landlord’s requirement to cap off the fire was appropriate based on its contractor’s findings.
13. Its decision to not reinstate the gas fire in the first instance was in accordance with its own policy which was appropriate. The resident contacted the landlord to advise that he wanted the fire re-connected. This Service acknowledges the resident’s comments that he felt the landlord’s decision to disconnect the fire was done maliciously. However, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on its appointed contractor to assess appropriate action and whether an appliance is safe or not.
14. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised because it had not explained the next steps once the fire was capped during its visit. It said that its operatives were unable to explain due to matters getting heated resulting in them being asked to leave. This explanation was reasonable. The evidence shows that the resident then contacted the landlord after the contractors had left.
15. The landlord then clearly explained to the resident that it had acted in accordance with its own policy and for the resident’s safety. It also advised the resident that he still had a working central heating system which was his primary heat source. This explanation was in accordance with its policy and appropriate in the circumstances.
16. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the report that oil had been spilt from the chip pan by its operatives during its visit. It said that it was satisfied that it had been cleaned at the time. It had also sent an apology to the resident in respect of this. The evidence also showed that it has obtained separate statements from its operatives to ascertain what had happened during the visit. There was no evidence to show that there had been any damage caused. Furthermore, the resident had not said that any damage had been caused. An apology was therefore an appropriate response in the circumstances.
17. In summary this Service considers that the landlord-maintained contact with the resident following the resident’s concerns about the disconnection of the gas fire. The evidence showed that the landlord had clearly explained its reasons for disconnecting the gas fire both within in its communication and complaint responses. Furthermore, its reasons given were in accordance with its policy. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its contractors had disconnected the gas fire.

Resident’s request to have the gas fire fixed and reconnected.

18. The resident asked the landlord to reconnect the gas fire. The landlord’s response said that it would be open to consider reasons why the resident required an additional heat source. This response was appropriate in the circumstances and showed that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
19. The landlord then did as it said and considered the resident’s concerns. It explained that based on the resident’s circumstances it would deviate from its policy on this occasion and reinstate the gas fire. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord had listened and was willing to be flexible based on the resident’s circumstances.
20. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord had recently been alerted to some safety concerns within the resident’s property. The landlord’s request therefore that it complete a person-centred fire risk assessment prior to reconnection of the gas fire was appropriate. It showed that the landlord understood the importance of supporting the resident’s request. It then appropriately balanced this against its own obligations as a landlord to ensure its residents are safe.
21. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the gas fire be fixed and reconnected.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that its contractors had disconnected the gas fire.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that the gas fire be fixed and reconnected.

Recommendations

24. The landlord is recommended to reiterate its offer to the resident to fix and re-connect his gas fire on the basis that he allows it to complete a person-centred fire risk assessment.