Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202122494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122494

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

14 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s request to remove redundant piping, boxing in, and a false wall in the living room.
2. The landlord’s handling of boxing in of a live gas pipe.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy for a two-bedroom bungalow. The resident’s tenancy started on 23 September 2010.
In 2013 the landlord carried out central heating improvements within the bungalow. On 11 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord a non-urgent repair request. He asked the landlord to remove a false wall in his lounge so it could be used as a storage area. The landlord replied on the same day stating that this was an alteration request and not a repair.
On 12 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that it was essential maintenance, as it was not removed when the 2013 improvement works were carried out. The landlord responded on the same day and reiterated its position, but as the resident disagreed with the response, it confirmed it had passed his email to the complaints team.
The landlord sent an informal reply to the resident on 15 July 2021, which confirmed that the complaint had not been upheld because the work requested by the resident was not classed as essential maintenance.
The resident called the landlord on 27 July 2021 and raised a stage one complaint. The resident disagreed with the reasons given by the landlord in the informal letter and felt that it was the landlord’s responsibility to remove the void area and bring it into use.
The landlord visited the resident to discuss his complaint on 5 August 2021, and provided a stage one response on 6 August 2021 confirming:
1. The work requested would be the resident’s responsibility to complete.
2. If the resident wished to continue with the alteration, he must obtain permission form the landlord.
3. If the resident choose to carry out the alteration, the landlord would only remove redundant pipework or cable, to ensure the property was safe and compliant.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2021 and requested the complaint be escalated to stage two of the process. The resident felt that redundant pipes, fixtures and fittings (including the false wall) should have been removed following the 2013 heating upgrade and therefore the responsibility was with the landlord to complete all works. Within the email, the resident raised two further points:
1. That the main gas pipe from the gas meter into the kitchen appeared to contravene gas safety installation and use regulations.
2. Works that had been completed in May 2021 to sleeve a pipe from the gas fire and through a chimney wall might not fully comply with gas safety installation and use regulations, as the work could not be inspected due to overuse of sealants.
On 25 August 2021 the resident confirmed he would delay his request for a stage two escalation to allow the landlord to investigate his additional points.
Between August and September 2021 the resident and landlord were in communication regarding the resident’s complaint. A second stage one response was sent by the landlord on 8 September 2021, which addressed the additional points raised. The landlord said:
1. A senior gas engineer and gas team leader visited on 7 September 2021 and agreed they would remove the old heating pipes and boxing in. It would also make good the area.
2. Orders had been raised to complete the works, as well as the boxing in of the gas pipe to the fire.
3. The pipework met current gas regulation, and the gas safety certificate issues, which the resident had been issued with, confirmed this.
The landlord attended the resident’s home and removed the pipework and false wall on 10 September 2021 as agreed at the 7 September 2021 home visit. On 14 September 2021, the landlord also agreed to remove the false wall, replaster and make good the area.
At the residents request, the landlord also sent copies of his gas safety certificates on 22 September 2021.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage two of the process on 27 September 2021, stating that he disagreed with multiple points of the response dated 8 September 2021.
The landlord responded on 30 September 2021 confirming, that in line with the complaints policy, as the resident’s complaint had been upheld at stage one and he was provided with the resolution he had requested, it would not be escalating the complaint to stage two. It also provided a detailed response to each of the further points the resident raised in his stage two escalation request, which included:
1. It had carried out works which were not part of its repair and maintenance procedure as a gesture of goodwill.
2. It would not be re-routing the live gas pipe as it was compliant with gas safety regulations, but would box in the pipework as previously discussed.
The complaint was referred to this Service on 17 December 2021 as the resident disagreed with the landlord’s response to his complaint. The resident also said that he wanted the landlord to:
1. Re-route the gas fire pipes so that they ran above the floorboards, in order to assist inspection.
2. Install separate gas isolation devices to gas pipes supplying gas hob in the kitchen and wall mounted gas fire in the lounge.
3. Relocate the exposed gas pipework in the kitchen, so it is not above the kitchen worktop.
4. Ensure all live gas pipes are covered with suitable boxing, that also provide ease of inspection.
5. Give generous consideration for the delays and disruption in denying the resident’s initial request.

Assessment and findings

Scope

A number of actions outlined at paragraph16 fall outside the scope of the complaint issues that were raised with the landlord. This complaint investigation will focus on the initial complaint raised by the resident in July 2021, the subsequent investigation and final response by the landlord in September 2021.

Assessment and findings

It is this Service’s role to assess the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident, and determine whether it acted reasonably based on the information available to it at the time. 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 three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s request to remove redundant piping, boxing in, and a false wall in the living room.

In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the landlord is responsible to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for water, gas, and electricity including gas pipes and any other installation for space heating and water heating.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy reflects the above and further states that if a resident requests a non-standard repair, this work can be carried out but the resident will be informed that the works are rechargeable. Non-standard repairs relating to gas and electricity will be carried out by the landlord to satisfy health and safety requirements and current legislation, and recharged.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 13 July 2021 asking it to remove the false wall in the living room, it responded appropriately by confirming that the works would be classed as an alteration. The landlord explained that the request would not be classed as a repair and informed the resident about how he could obtain permission to carry out improvements to his home. The landlord followed fair processes, as this position was in line with its repair and maintenance policy
When the resident asked for his complaint to be logged at stage one of the process on 27 July 2021, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reiterate its previous stance. However, information provided to this Service shows that the landlord acted fairly by visiting the resident on 5 August 2021 to discuss his concerns fully and again confirmed that the works he was requesting were not a repair.
Nevertheless, in light of the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord agreed to complete work to remove the redundant boxing in, pipework, and wall. This was outside of its obligations, further demonstrating that it was taking steps to assist the resident.
In summary, the actions of the landlord show that it carefully considered the resident’s request by visiting the resident. It clearly set out its obligations and reasons as to why it declined his request. The landlord confirmed what it was responsible for and what next steps the resident should take if he wished to go ahead with the alteration.

The landlord’s handling of boxing in of a live gas pipe.

Following the stage one response, the resident emailed the landlord on 15 August 2021 and raised the following additional concerns:
1. The main gas pipe from the gas meter into the kitchen appeared to contravene gas safety, installation, and use regulations.
2. Work completed in May 2021 to sleeve a pipe from the gas fire and through a chimney wall might not fully comply with gas safety, installation and use regulations, as the work could not be inspected due to overuse of sealants.
Information provided to this Service shows that the landlord acted appropriately by visiting the resident on 19 August and again on 7 September 2021 to discuss his concerns. Internal records show that the landlord confirmed that although the property conformed to current gas regulations, it would arrange for some works to be raised regarding the redundant piping. The landlord followed up with a phone call on 7 September 2021 and a letter was sent to the resident on 8 September 2021, which confirmed:
1. That the old heating pipes and boxing in would be removed and would be completed on 10 September 2021.
2. A live gas pipe, connected to the gas fire would need to be protected by boxing and a job had been logged for a tradesperson to attend the week beginning 13 September 2021.

Internal repair records show that a job was booked for 13 September 2021 for a tradesperson to attend and complete the boxing in of the gas pipe, but the job was refused by the resident. The resident does not agree with this account. This Service is unable to ascertain what was said on the visit, or determine why the job did not go ahead, so is unable to comment further.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2021 and stated that he did not agree to the boxing in of the pipework, and instead requested that the live gas pipe was rerouted and a separate isolation valve installed. The landlord responded appropriately on the 14 September 2021 stating that the current pipework had been inspected and confirmed to meet with Gas Safety Regulations and therefore would not be rerouting the live gas pipe to the fire. The landlord also provided the resident with copies of the gas safety certificates, to support its position. The Ombudsman has been provided with internal emails which confirm the landlord’s position.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint and confirmed that it would not re-route the gas pipe. The landlord also asked the resident to make contact in order for the boxing in to be arranged.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately here. It was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to decline to re-route the gas pipe, given that the landlord had visited the property twice to inspect and determined that in its current position, it was compliant with legislation.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy, effective January 2021, said that when a resident has a problem or is unhappy with the service, it will ask the resident if they are happy to allow it the opportunity to resolve the complaint informally within seven working days. The landlord refers to this as the informal stage of its process.
The landlord’s complaint policy shows it operated a two-stage formal complaint procedure at the time of the complaint. It shows the landlord aimed to respond within 10 working days and that, if a complainant felt that it had not adequately addressed the issues raised at stage one, then could request the complaint be escalated to stage two.
When an escalation request is received, the landlord would review the case to decide the most appropriate option for escalating a complaint with the focus being on achieving a prompt resolution, customer satisfaction and best use of resources.

The policy sets out that it may choose not to escalate a complaint to stage two, if:
1. The complaint was upheld at stage one and an appropriate and proportionate resolution was offered to the customer.
2. the resolution requested could not be provided, as it was disproportionate, or outside of its control to influence or change.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2020 (the Code), point 3.5, specifies that if the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure and the timescales set out in this Code. Point 4.13 specifies that where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 12 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for his repair request decision to be reviewed. The landlord responded informally on 15 July 2021 not upholding the complaint and invited the resident to make contact within the next 10 working days if he had any questions about the content of the letter. As the landlord did not ask the resident if they were happy to allow it the opportunity to resolve the complaint informally, it failed to follow its own policy here.
A stage one complaint was later raised on 27 July 2021 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and provided its response on 6 August 2021, which was in line with its complaint policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2021, where he raised a number of new questions regarding the gas pipes and asked to escalate his complaint to stage two. As the resident had raised additional points, the landlord asked the resident to delay his stage two request, so it could provide a stage one response to the new issues. This demonstrates good practice from the landlord, and as the landlord communicated clearly its intent and had the resident’s agreement, it was reasonable for the landlord to not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two at that point.
The landlord provided a further response on 8 September 2021 addressing the new issues raised. Following contact from the resident, it further clarified the position in full on 14 September 2021 and asked the resident to provide further reasons why he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two.
Following the resident’s reasons for escalation, the landlord responded that it would not be escalating the complaint to stage two as the complaint was upheld at stage one and an appropriate and proportionate resolution was offered to the resident. Information provided to this Service shows that the landlord did review the resident’s request.
Although the decision the landlord took was in line with its own policy, it did not follow point 3.5 of the Code as the resident clearly explained that the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction.
However despite not officially escalating to stage two, the landlord’s 30 September 2021 response did contain a detailed reply to each of the points the resident had raised. As such, the decision not to escalate the complaint to stage two did not have a significant impact, as the resident received a reply to his outstanding concerns despite this. The landlord also provided the resident with details of how to refer the complaint to this Service.
In summary, the landlord did not handle the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two fairly. This would amount to service failure in the circumstances. However, as the landlord provided a full response to each point raised, there was no significant adverse effect to the resident. As such a finding of ‘no maladministration’ is made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s request to remove redundant piping, boxing in, and a false wall in the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s failure to complete the boxing in of a live gas pipe.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident to arrange a suitable appointment the boxing in of the existing gas fire pipework.
The landlord should ensure complaints are escalated in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should ensure that it asks a resident for their agreement to deal with a complaint informally, in line with its own policy.