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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202008731)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008731

Sanctuary Housing Association

8 March 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 maintenance of the boiler.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. During the installation of a smart meter to the resident’s boiler, the meter installer determined the boiler was unsafe.
  3. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord “to keep and repair in good working order the installations provided by the Association for … the supply of gas … and the installations providing space and water heating.”

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. According to the landlord’s repair procedure, when a resident reports a repair to the landlord the repair will classified as an emergency repair or an appointed repair. Emergency repairs include “heating repairs (in the winter season) where there is no other heating.” Emergency repairs should be responded to and made safe within 24 hours of the report.
  2. The landlord’s gas and compliance servicing procedure states “the group will ensure that a Landlord Gas Safety Record (LGSR) is in place for all gas installations for which it is responsible. A competent registered Gas Safe Engineer will carry out the gas safety check.”
  3. The landlord is legally required to complete an annual gas safety check and provide an LGSR in every property with a mains gas supply.
  4. Gas Safe Technical Bulletin 152 (TB152) states “When fitting a chimney there are two distinct and separate requirements for the installer to consider:
    1. Weather proofing of the termination to prevent weather and/or combustion product entry.
    2. Security of the chimney to prevent disconnection.

Often the manufacturer’s instructions will offer guidance on the above especially when extended chimney/flue runs are used. Manufacturer’s guidance shall be followed…”

  1. The manufacturer’s instructions refer to a wall seal, and that if necessary, it can be fixed to the wall with sealant. There is no reference to the flue having to be cemented.
  2. According to the Gas Safe inspection report the classification ‘Not to current standards’ (NCS) has been removed from the Gas Industry Unsafe Situations Procedure (GIUSP) as such situations are not unsafe. In situations where the standards have changed since installation, a classification of ‘NCS’ does not require remedial action and the information is advisory.
  3. The landlord’s complaints procedure includes guidance relating to compensation and gestures of goodwill. It states when making a decision to offer a gesture of goodwill, the landlord will consider the inconvenience the problem caused, difficulties the resident experienced when making their complaint and the Housing Ombudsman’s published guidance and past determinations.

Summary of events

  1. On 8 January 2020, a contractor from the energy supplier attended the resident’s property to install a smart meter. The resident states that whilst there the contractor advised the boiler flue was not sealed causing carbon monoxide to leak and that this should have been identified during previous gas services. The contractor disconnected the boiler and put a warning sticker on it. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord to report that she had no heating or hot water.
  2. The landlord’s gas operative attended the property to inspect the boiler within two hours of the report. The resident rang the landlord whilst the gas operative was at the property advising the gas operative was refusing to seal the flue at both ends and she believed that was dangerous and against the law. The landlord sought further advice from the relevant team and assured the resident the gas operative would not leave her with an unsafe boiler.
  3. In his notes the gas operative stated he spoke with the boiler manufacturer who advised if the flue was secure “only the external needs cementing and weather collar.” Following the conversation with the boiler manufacturer, the gas operative sealed the flue externally and left the boiler in a safe and working condition.
  4. On 9 January 2020, the landlord raised a job for the installation of new smoke alarms and an appointment was arranged for 5 February 2020.
  5. On 4 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked to speak to a gas supervisor about the “unstable flue”. The landlord emailed the gas supervisor and asked him to contact the resident. The resident also cancelled the appointment regarding the smoke alarms.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 March 2020 chasing the call from the gas supervisor.
  7. On 9 March 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident stated she had lost half a day’s pay due to having to wait for the landlord’s operative to attend and repair the boiler. She alleged that the defect identified by the contractor had put her and her family’s life at risk “for years” as the landlord should have picked up the defect during the annual inspection. She also complained that she had not been contacted by a manager.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 16 March 2020. It advised feedback had been provided to the relevant departments, which would be addressed internally if necessary and offered a goodwill gesture of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the resident having to take time off work.
  9. The resident responded the same day. She explained she did not accept the goodwill gesture of £50 and stated her “request for an explanation to a serious and valid question is still being ignored.” She reiterated that she wanted a manager to call her and discuss the matter. The landlord responded to advise the complaint had been escalated to stage two and an acknowledgment was sent on 19 March 2020.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 April 2020 and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord summarised that the resident contacted it on 8 January 2020 to report that she had no heating and hot water after a contractor had attended to install a smart meter and disconnected the boiler as the flue was not sealed. Its own gas engineer had attended later the same day and having read the warning notice left by the contractor stating the flue was not sealed for stability, had contacted the boiler manufacturer. The boiler manufacturer advised him that if the flue was secure, only the external side needed to be sealed which he confirmed he had done. Whilst at the property the gas operative raised a job for the upstairs and downstairs smoke alarms to be renewed. The landlord stated the smoke alarms were installed on 29 January 2020.
  11. The landlord agreed it was best practice to secure the flue to the outside of the building for stability purposes although not necessarily as a seal as the flue has screws fitted to prevent it from being dislodged. The landlord also agreed that stabilising the flue externally should probably have been identified at previous gas safety inspections as best practice although the manufacturer’s instructions do not require this. The landlord explained the manufacturer’s instructions overrule any health and safety or gas safe guidance. The landlord confirmed all its gas engineers are gas safe registered and are re-tested every five years.
  12. The landlord also acknowledged the gas supervisor had not returned the resident’s call as requested and apologised for this. It explained this had been discussed with the supervisor and he had advised he had tried to return the call but there was no answer. The landlord explained it would have expected the supervisor to make further attempts to contact the resident and that this would be addressed by his manager. It offered a further £45 in recognition of the supervisor not returning her call and the time taken to address her concerns.
  13. The resident responded on 14 April advising she had passed the letter to her gas expert for a further opinion before she responded in full. She also advised that the smoke alarms had not been replaced. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response and advised it would make some enquiries regarding the smoke alarms.
  14. On 20 April 2020 requesting that the complaint remained open until her boiler had been inspected by Gas Safe, who were also investigating the matter, which the landlord agreed to. Gas Safe is the official list of gas businesses who are registered to work safely and legally on gas appliances. It aims to protect the public from unsafe gas work and can investigate reports of unsafe gas work.
  15. Gas Safe attended the property on 25 June 2020 to inspect the boiler and sent a report to the landlord. Gas Safe confirmed that at the time of its visit they found no gas safety related defects.
  16. Following the inspection, the landlord sent a final letter to the resident on 2 July 2020. The landlord reiterated that whilst stabilising the flue externally was best practice, it was satisfied it had complied with the manufacturer’s instructions. It was also satisfied the issue would not be classed as “immediately dangerous and represent any inherent safety risks”, instead being classed as “not to current standards”.
  17. The landlord apologised for the smoke alarm replacement being marked as complete by mistake and explained this had been addressed with the relevant person. It confirmed it would arrange for an operative to attend to renew the alarms as soon as possible. The landlord increased the compensation offered to £130 to take account of the inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the alarm.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident contacted the landlord after a smart meter engineer determined her boiler was unsafe, leaving her with no heating and hot water. The landlord responded within two hours, well within its target of 24 hours for emergency repairs.
  2. Whilst at the property, the landlord’s operative inspected the boiler, spoke with the boiler manufacturer, reviewed TB152 and determined the boiler was safe. Whilst the resident disagreed with the operative’s assessment, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified operative to determine whether the boiler was safe and in working order. The operative completed some remedial work to seal the flue externally with cement, however the evidence provided suggests the work completed was ‘best practice’ rather than a requirement and therefore it is not unreasonable that this work had not been identified and remediated during previous inspections.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked for a supervisor to call her to discuss the matter as she believed the boiler was still unsafe. The supervisor concerned has stated he cannot recall whether he spoke with the resident, believing he may have called but got no answer.
  4. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s operative secured the flue externally and Gas Safe did not find any outstanding issues at the time of its investigation. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to carry out any further action.
  5. The landlord agreed to keep the resident’s complaint open until the inspection had been completed by Gas Safe. The landlord did not need to agree to this request, and the Ombudsman commends the landlord for being flexible in its approach.
  6. The landlord’s records showed the smoke alarms had been renewed on 29 January 2020. However, the appointment had been arranged for 5 February 2020, though this was cancelled by the resident the day before. Whilst it is unclear how the job was marked as being complete seven days prior to the actual appointment, the landlord has acknowledged the error, explained it will be addressed with the relevant team and offered compensation.
  7. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the operative having to attend to restore the boiler, the inconvenience caused by having to take extra time off work, the failure of the supervisor to contact her, the time taken to address the complaint and the delay in fitting smoke alarms. In recognition of these failures, the landlord has offered the resident £130 in compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a manager within the relevant team should have contacted the resident to discuss her concerns with her, however the compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the compensation offered to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for any failures in this case. It has provided feedback to the relevant departments and staff to ensure learning is identified and disseminated accordingly. Finally, it has offered the resident a reasonable level of compensation in recognition of the identified failings.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £130 gesture of goodwill payment it has previously offered.