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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202304209)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304209

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 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 concerns about gas safety at her property.

Background

  1. The resident has lived, with her partner and children, in the 2-bedroom, top floor flat since 2016.
  2. On 12 October 2022, the landlord’s contractors carried out the annual gas safety check at the property. The contractor marked the boiler as ‘at risk’ as he could not gain access to the locked communal loft area to inspect the flue. The resident reported the contractor attached a warning notice, switched the boiler off, and told her she could turn it on at her own risk.
  3. The resident advised the Ombudsman she turned the boiler on only for the periods they needed hot water. There were occasions over winter when she needed to turn the heating on, but she kept them to a minimum preferring to use blankets to keep warm and as she lives in the top floor flat, she benefits from the rising heat from her neighbours’ flats.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to see what it was doing to remedy this on 8 November 2022. The issue remained outstanding despite the resident’s chasing, so she raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint, offering the resident £170 and advising it would gain access to the loft by 27 March 2023 and the contractor would inspect the flue after this date.
  5. The landlord did not resolve the issue as promised and the resident escalated her complaint. In its final resolution letter, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and increased its compensation offer by £80. It advised the contractor would attend on 5 May 2023 to resolve all the issues. The contractor issued the gas safe certificate on 19 May 2023.
  6. The resident is still dissatisfied and so brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident does not believe the landlord has taken responsibility for the issues which she went through and as a resolution would like it to complete a compliance investigation so all residents can be confident in its gas safety management.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident highlighted her concerns about gas safety checks from previous years. As the landlord did not consider this in its complaint responses the Ombudsman is not able to determine on this matter in accordance with 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about gas safety at her property

  1. There is a requirement under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 for the landlord to undertake annual gas safety checks in its properties. The landlord confirms this in its gas management policy and in the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement specifically states the landlord agrees to carry out annual safety inspections of gas appliances pipework and flues. The resident must permit the landlord access to inspect any gas installations and flues annually.
  2. In the landlord’s gas management policy, it commits to ensuring its employees, customers, contractors, and anybody else affected by its activities are not knowingly exposed to any risks that would affect their safety. The landlord will service and check the safety of all relevant gas appliances and any associated flues on an annual basis. In line with regulations the landlord will produce documents to support the servicing, this will include any defect identified, and any action required, or taken to fix it.
  3. The gas industry unsafe situations procedure (GIUSP) states an ‘at risk’ appliance is one which is potentially dangerous, where one or more faults exist and which, as a result, may in the future constitute a danger to life or property. In general, the engineer will turn the appliance off with the resident’s permission to make the situation safe and a “danger do not use” label attached. There are some exceptions where turning off the appliance will not make the situation safer, and these shall be referred for resolution. These do not require a danger label.
  4. The landlord’s communication service standards state it will return calls as soon as it can and within 2 working days. When the landlord needs to visit the resident, it will agree an appointment in advance.
  5. The Ombudsman would like to confirm it views the landlord as responsible for the actions of its contractors. The landlord should ensure, through contracts and regular meetings, that the contractor acts in its best interests. Therefore, for the purposes of this report when referring to the contractor and its actions the Ombudsman deems this to be the landlord.
  6. When the contractor inspected the gas installations it found it was unable to inspect the flue as the communal loft hatch was locked. The Ombudsman has seen a photograph of the ‘do not use’ warning notice which the contractor attached to the boiler. The contractor reported it as ‘at risk’ and the remedial action was to “get key for loft”. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the contractor said someone would be in touch to resolve the issue. As the resident did not hear anything regarding this, she contacted the landlord. The resident should not have had to take this action, but when she did, the landlord should have implemented a plan to resolve the issue.
  7. The resident had to chase the landlord twice before it arranged a visit for 24 November 2022. This did not remedy the situation and the resident chased it for an update on 5 January 2023. After further calls which did not resolve the issue, the resident raised a complaint on 1 February 2023. In taking over 2 months to raise a formal complaint, the resident has given the landlord ample opportunity to resolve the situation. By raising the complaint, the resident illustrated her loss of confidence in her landlord’s ability to manage the situation.
  8. The landlord was late in its stage 1 letter, taking 20 working days to issue the response, rather than the 10 working days it commits to in its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence the landlord and resident agreed an extension. In the landlord’s stage 1 letter, it recognised that it did not respond to 5 of the resident’s calls within its 2-day service standards. The landlord committed to resolving the access issues by 27 March 2023 in its stage 1 response, but it did not achieve this. The lack of urgency and the broken commitments from the landlord would have undermined the landlord-resident relationship.
  9. By the time of the landlord’s final resolution letter, it had enabled access by replacing the loft hatch. In the final resolution the landlord committed the contractor to complete the outstanding checks on 5 May 2023. Unfortunately, this did not result in a new gas safety certificate, which the contractor issued 2 weeks later. These repeated broken commitments would have contributed to the reasons the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. The complaints process provides the landlord with an opportunity to resolve outstanding issues but its repeated failure and lack of urgency to resolve the issue would have frustrated the resident further.
  10. The resident involved the Ombudsman and referred her case to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to try to seek support in gaining a resolution. These actions indicate the resident did not feel well informed about the progression of the issue. The HSE contacted the landlord on 20 April 2023, unfortunately they did not receive a response from the landlord and had to chase on 27 April 2023.
  11. The resident reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord made her feel stupid when it told her, contrary to the contractor’s advice, she could have been using the boiler all along. The landlord verbally communicated this to the resident on an unknown date, and included in its stage 1 response. The resident appropriately felt hesitant about this due to it being in contradiction to the warning notice put on the boiler and the contractor’s advice. Due to the much publicised need to have safely working gas installations, the resident felt a responsibility not only to her family, but to her neighbours as a resident in a block of flats. The resident was concerned enough to seek advice from her colleagues as to whether this was correct. The resident’s reluctance to use the boiler despite the landlord’s assurances was understandable.
  12. The resident reported to the Ombudsman she used the boiler minimally over the winter period which would have been an inconvenience to her and her family.
  13. The resident reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord or contractor attended her property without notice which resulted in no access, this was not in adherence to its service standards. In addition, the resident advised she had waited in for appointments that neither the contractor nor the landlord attended. When they did attend, they did not have the correct loft hatch key, or it had not been left in the correct place. The resident’s experience would likely result in a loss of confidence in the landlord.
  14. In internal landlord communications seen by the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed that putting ‘at risk’ on the certificate seemed to be the correct action. In other internal communication it states marking ‘at risk’ should not have happened as the contractor checked the integrity of the flue via the boiler, so it should have been safe to use. This contradiction illustrates the confusion around this area. The gas safe regulations and the tenancy agreement are clear that the flue needs to be inspected, therefore this needs to happen. The landlord’s lack of urgency on this matter is concerning.
  15. Additionally, when producing the gas safe certificate after visually inspecting the flue the contractor highlighted that although the flue was supported it needed an extra clamp. This highlights the importance for the visual inspection.
  16. Since 12 October 2022, when the contractor highlighted an issue with the boiler, the landlord should have had a plan in place to resolve the issues. However, it did not. Once reminded the landlord should have formulated a plan and adhered to it, this was not done. The landlord failed to meet the promises it made, missing opportunities to resolve the issues, which gave the impression this was not a priority.
  17. The Ombudsman was encouraged to see the landlord, in its internal communications with the contractor, ask for the rest of the block to be reviewed to see if other properties were marked ’at risk’. The contractor established there was another flat in the same situation.
  18. While the Ombudsman was encouraged to see this, it has been noted this request was dated 7 March 2023, after the landlord had been aware of the issue for 4 months. In addition, the Ombudsman has concerns as the landlord had to ask the contractor for this information. This raises the question whether the landlord retains the gas safe records itself, or it relies on the contractor to hold these. The landlord’s wider stock and record keeping will form outcomes of this report.
  19. The resident had a gas safety certificate which stated there was an ‘at risk’ issue for over 7 months. There was no evident plan to remedy this, and the resident had to repeatedly chase for the landlord to resolve the matter. The resident did not feel confident in the landlord’s actions and sought help from external bodies and from her colleagues. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about gas safety at her property due to the landlord’s repeated failings to resolve this issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about gas safety at her property.

Orders

  1. The landlord to issue a written apology to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £800. This has been awarded using the landlord’s compensation policy. The family lived with an ‘at risk’ gas safe certificate for an extended period over winter. The resident did not have confidence to use the heating and hot water system resulting in significant inconvenience and impact which took a long time for the landlord to resolve. This award is inclusive of any previous compensation offered on this matter.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure:
    1. The wider public interest is addressed by identifying any current gas safe certificates with ‘at risk’ or ‘immediately dangerous’ across the landlord’s stock. The risk is to be mitigated so all residents know their property is safe. If the property is safe the landlord needs to confirm either in writing to the resident or by producing a gas safe certificate with no warnings.
    2. The contract management is examined to clarify the responsibility, process, and timescales for resolving any issues arising from gas inspections.
    3. The landlord has direct access to the gas safety records of its stock, it should not be reliant on its contractors for this information.
    4. The resident experiences the same advice and levels of service from the landlord and its contractor. The contractor and landlord should be in full alignment when dealing with residents.
  4. The landlord is to confirm compliance to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report for paragraphs 31 and 32. The landlord has 10 weeks from the date of this report to confirm compliance for paragraph 33.