The Guinness Partnership Limited (202304473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304473

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check of the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a medium rise block of flats (the block). He has lived at the property since 2002.
The landlord conducts annual gas safety checks in its properties. It uses a contractor to contact its residents and conduct the checks on its behalf.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 May 2022 to say that the gas safety check was due. An appointment was offered for 1 June 2022. The resident was unavailable for the appointment. It sent a further appointment on 3 June 2022 for a morning visit on 13 June 2022 (a Monday). In the appointment letter it said it had been unable to gain access on the previous visit and highlighted the need to conduct the checks.
The resident said that he received the appointment letter on Saturday 11 June 2022. He was unable to call the landlord or its contractor to inform them he would be unavailable for the appointment. When the contractor visited on 13 June 2022 it left a calling card for the resident on the main door of the block.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 June 2022. He said:
1. He was unhappy that letters were sent with appointments without enough notice. The last letter arrived on a weekend before the appointment on a Monday.
2. He had tried calling the contractor 5 times unsuccessfully to rearrange the appointment on 1 June 2022. He had also attempted to call the landlord unsuccessfully.
3. He felt the tone of the letters was aggressive stating that he would be taken to Court and fined £1,000.
4. He was unhappy that the contractor left a calling card on the front of the block and would like this removing as it was not his front door. He was concerned that this could increase the risk to his property if other people thought that no one was living at the property.
5. He was concerned that the landlord had passed his personal contact details to its contractor without his permission.
The landlord raised the concerns about the calling card and emails sent to the resident with its contractor on 15 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 June 2022. This was around 5 working days later. It set out its understanding of the complaint. It set out the dates the letters had been sent and that an appointment had not been made for the check. It asked the resident to arrange the check with the contractor directly and said he would continue to receive calls/letters/emails until it was. It said:
1. Its contractor had experienced high call volumes. It apologised for the number of times the resident had tried to call to rearrange the appointment.
2. It apologised if its letters caused him any upset. It explained that the gas check was a legal requirement. Its letters were worded in a way to demonstrate urgency and the importance of the appointment.
3. It had shared contact details for the resident with its contractor as part of a sharing agreement it had in place.
The parties exchanged emails on 23 June 2022 regarding appointments for the gas safety checks. The resident questioned the landlord how it had access to his email. The landlord said that it had these details from his housing application.
The landlord sent an overdue notice for the gas safety check on 30 June 2022. It said that it had attempted visits to complete the check but had been unable to gain access. It asked the resident to contact its contractor to arrange a suitable appointment. It said that if it were not granted access to complete the checks it would take legal action.
The resident called the landlord on 1 July 2022 to say that he was unavailable for the appointments offered. He was unhappy with the contact from the landlord and said that it should be working with him to agree a suitable date for the checks.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2022 to say that the gas service was overdue. It said that no access had been granted. If it had been unable to access the property at the next appointment it would take legal action to gain access. It would pass the costs onto the resident and expected them to be around £1,000. It must complete the checks within 11 months of the last service.
The resident called the contractor on 11 July 2022 and asked it not to email him again.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022 to say that the gas service was due. It offered an appointment for 15 July 2022. It said that it must conduct gas safety checks every 10 months.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 11 July 2022. He emailed the landlord the following day to set out his reasoning. He said:
1. He considered the response on 21 June to be “wholly inadequate”. He was aware that the gas safety check needed to take place each year and did not need “constant reminding”.
2. Each of the appointment letters he had received within 1-2 days of the appointment dates. He had been told that visits were going to happen and rarely had any opportunity to rearrange as letters arrived on weekends or the same day as appointments. He worked long hours and was not always available with short notice.
3. He had called the contactor and the landlord to try and rearrange visits without success.
4. He felt the tone of the emails he received was unreasonable. He had been threatened with legal action after being given conflicting information about the timescales involved to complete the checks. He was told the gas service was overdue but was not required until 21 July 2022.
5. He was receiving onerous numbers of emails and letters from the landlord and its contractor. He felt he was subjected to “coercive tactics” by the landlord.
6. He did not want either the landlord or contractor emailing him. He asked for complaints to be handled over the phone and other correspondence to be by letter.
7. He asked for his personal details not to be given to any other third parties.
8. He felt the landlord did not treat him with respect or decency.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2022 saying that the gas safety check was overdue and serious. It said it would take legal action to seek an injunction within 7 days requiring him to allow access to the property. It would seek a 12 month order to cover both the current gas check, as well as the next. It set out that if no access was granted before a court order then they will seek costs against the resident.
The resident responded to the letter on 19 July 2022. He told the landlord that he had already scheduled a gas safety inspection for the same day. He said:
1. He had asked for his complaint to be escalated but continued to receive “offensive” letters. He felt that this was harassment “based on lies and completely false information”.
2. He was upset that the landlord kept referring to the checks as overdue and highlighted that it was not due until 21 July 2022.
3. He had not prevented access to the property but tried to arrange suitable appointments.
4. He had continued to receive appointments that gave less than 24 hours notice. He was “totally and utterly fed up with it”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 August 2022. This was around 16 working days later. It set out the details of the complaint and a chronology of events broadly similar to the above timeline. It summarised its findings as follows:
1. Letters sent without much notice.
  1. It sent letters via second class post. It expected them to arrive with the resident sooner than they eventually did. Although they arrived later than expected, had they arrived in the usual timeframe then the appointments would have given reasonable notice to re-arrange.
  2. It tried various other methods, such as email and text to make the process easier. On several occasions it provided multiple dates, timeslots and explained how the resident could select a convenient date. It also conducted cold calls where it had no response in the hope it could complete the check. It was satisfied that this was fair.
2. Wording of letters.
  1. Its letters were composed with the help of its solicitors. It was aware that the wording could seem aggressive. However, it was its intention to ensure that residents understood the importance of having the checks completed. It had legal obligations and had to ensure resident safety. It was confident the letters were worded appropriately.
3. Contacting the contractor.
  1. The contractor experienced a high volume of calls, particularly between 8.00am-10.00am and 4.00pm-6.00pm. It appreciated that it could take the resident’s personal time and effort to speak to them on the phone and this could be frustrating. It apologised that this was the case.
4. Calling card.
  1. It left calling cards for residents and often instructed its operatives to leave them on doors so they were visible. However, in the email to the resident on 5 July 2022 it noted that operatives should not be leaving cards in public places. It had given feedback to avoid future incidents of this nature. This element was not previously addressed in the stage 1 response. It was satisfied that it had now been acknowledged and addressed.
5. Sharing the resident’s email address.
  1. It said that it would use personal details in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). It could share his contact details for specific purposes, such as with its contractors to conduct work on its behalf.
  2. It believed it was appropriate that the contractor had the resident’s email and use it to make appointments.
6. It partially upheld the complaint on the basis it agreed a calling card should not have been left in the public areas of the building. It offered £25 compensation for stress and inconvenience.
7. It wanted to learn from failure and took steps to improve its service. It provided feedback to its contractor to ensure calling cards were only posted or left on the front door of residents in future.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman on 5 May 2023. He said that he felt the landlord had “lied” about the dates the checks were due in its correspondence with him. He felt that the landlord had treated him unfairly and not considered his working patterns when making appointments.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the resident made a new complaint on 12 June 2023. He said that he had received a letter for the gas safety check, with the appointment set for the same day. He had called the contractor to rearrange the appointment but felt it had been unhelpful during the call.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 July 2023. It said:
1. The appointment letter had been sent on 2 June 2023. There had been an issue with postal services outside of its control that caused it to arrive much later. It expected the letter to have been received by the resident with time to allow 5 working days notice.
2. It had reviewed the call made to the contractor and had given feedback.
3. There had been an error in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident had called the landlord to complain on 12 June 2023, but it had not logged the complaint at the time of the call. It apologised for the error and provided feedback to the call handler.
4. If offered compensation of £25 for the delay in logging the complaint.
5. It said the contractor was due to attend and complete the gas safety check on 12 July 2023. It set out the importance of the check and gave contact details for the contractor to rearrange if it was not suitable.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The landlord must conduct regular inspections of gas appliances and flues.
2. The resident must allow the landlord’s contractors and employees to come into the property at any reasonable time. This is to look at the condition of the property or conduct repairs. It will normally tell him 24 hours in advance.
The landlord’s gas management policy states that it will:
1. Arrange for the safe installation and maintenance of gas appliances.
2. Service and check the safety of gas appliances that it is responsible for annually.
3. Service and maintain gas appliances in line with legislative requirements.
4. Ensure all reasonable steps are taken to access properties where it has a responsibility to maintain the gas appliances. Where access is not provided, it will pursue legal action to gain the required level of access.

Handling of its annual gas safety inspection of the property.

The landlord is obliged to conduct annual gas safety inspections in the property. The evidence shows that it sought to provide more than 24 hours notice to conduct these inspections. Its letters were clear regarding the landlord and resident’s obligations regarding the gas safety inspections. The evidence shows that the landlord made efforts to contact the resident outside of sending letters to arrange the inspection. It attempted unannounced visits and emailed the resident.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord is required to conduct the annual gas safety check. The checks are necessary for the safety of the resident. The landlord has the discretion to ensure that reasonable action is taken to ensure that the appointment is arranged and conducted within 12 months. It is reasonable to pursue communication and continue with its process until an appointment is complete. This often helps to mitigate against the last minute cancellation of appointments.
However, the resident said that he was unhappy with the number of letters he received and the short notice given for appointments. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to arrange convenient appointments for both parties. During the call to the landlord on 1 July 2022, it could have arranged a suitable date for the checks. Additionally, the resident requested for contact to be made by phone when he escalated his complaint on 11 July 2022. The landlord should have used this as an opportunity to call him and agree a date for the checks to go ahead.
The landlord’s decision to warn the resident that it would begin legal proceedings to conduct the annual gas safety check was unnecessary. There was an unreasonable frequency to the letters being sent to the resident. The escalation was issued after the resident had been in contact with both the landlord and its contractor. He had confirmed his willingness to allow access to conduct the check but raised concerns about the notice given to him by the landlord. Its actions did not maintain a good relationship between the parties or display a willingness by it to resolve the situation amicably. The landlord could have allowed for the issues with the delivery of appointments and provided more notice in response to the resident’s concerns. It could have made more effort to call the resident and book a convenient appointment.
Some of the letters had conflicting advice regarding the dates that the gas service was due. Some said that the gas safety checks were necessary every 10 months, others said 11 months. The landlord should ensure that the correspondence it sends is accurate and in line with its policy and procedures.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 lacked detail and did little to address the substantive issue. The landlord should use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve disputes. Its response at stage 1 lacked effectiveness in this regard. The landlord recognised that there had been failings when it issued its stage 2 response. There was more effort to address the substantive issues and recognition of the impact the correspondence had on him.
The landlord recognised that it was unreasonable to have left a calling card on the communal door. Once it became aware of the situation, it contacted the contractor and shared learning to reduce the risk of this happening in the future. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. Its offer of £25 compensation was reflective of the detriment this issue caused and showed the landlord’s intention to put things right.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the sharing of his personal data appropriately. Its response was clear about its sharing agreement with its contractor and was fair in the circumstances.
There was a recurrence of access issues in 2023. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint handling. However, it did not set out any learning from outcomes regarding the issues it continued to have with the delivery of appointments. The landlord’s offer of £25 did not put things right in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of its annual gas safety inspection of the property. There was evidence that it had not learned from outcomes, it was not fair and did not put things right. There was no redress reflective of the detriment caused. There was time and trouble caused by the resident chasing both the landlord and its contractor to arrange the appointments. It should have made ensured that reasonable notice was provided to the resident and made some adjustments to allow appointments to be made. It could have made more effort to call the resident to book appointments. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £100 for his time and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its annual gas safety inspection of the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble. This is in addition to the £25 previously offered.
Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.