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

Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited (202216128)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216128

Warwickshire Rural Housing Association Limited

19 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s annual gas safety inspection. The Ombudsman has also considered the amount of compensation the landlord offered the resident in response to her complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom bungalow under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident reports that she is disabled and that she lives with COPD and fibromyalgia.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor on 3 April 2022 in relation to a pre-booked appointment the following day to complete the annual gas safety inspection. She requested that the contractor only attend between 10am and 12pm.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor again on 4 April 2022. She stated that the operatives did not attend between 10am to 12pm. She asked the contractor to rearrange the appointment for 9.30 am on 6 April 2022.
  4. The contractors attended the resident’s home on 4 April, 14 April, and 9 May 2022, but were unable to gain access to complete the inspection.
  5. During a telephone conversation on 11 May 2022, the resident requested that the contractor make an appointment to attend her home at 10.15am. The contractor explained that it was unable to satisfy the resident’s request because it managed multiple appointments each day, and each appointment required a varying and unpredictable amount of time to complete and then travel to the next appointment. Therefore, it was not able to promise her a specific appointment time. It offered to make a morning or an afternoon appointment for the resident, as an alternative to an all-day appointment.
  6. In an email to the landlord dated 17 May 2022, the resident complained that:
    1. she had made two appointments with the contractor, which were not attended
    2. she had not been offered more specific appointment times
    3. contractors had made appointments via text message with one day’s notice
    4. no one had made contact with her to arrange an appointment which was suitable for her
    5. the contractors had told her that she would need to make herself available for an entire day, which she could not do due to her disability.
  7. In a letter dated 18 May 2022, the resident was informed that solicitors had been instructed to begin legal proceedings against her if the landlord was not able to gain access to the property to complete the gas survey.
  8. An appointment was arranged for operatives to attend on 8 June 2022. On 7 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asking for the appointment to be cancelled. Operatives did attend the resident’s home throughout the day on 8 June 2022 until they were able to gain access. The gas safety inspection was completed on that day.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response on 10 June 2022, the landlord:
    1. explained the resident had been misinformed on 3 April 2022, and that the contractor was unable to offer two-hour appointment slots
    2. apologised to the resident for the miscommunication
    3. explained that the appointment booked by the resident for 9:30am on 6 April 2022 had not been confirmed by the contractor
    4. acknowledged that these communications were not clear.
  10. In an email dated 14 June 2022, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. In a follow up email on 16 June 2022, she stated that she wanted £500 compensation in resolution of her complaint. She was dissatisfied that:
    1. the landlord had threatened court action
    2. the landlord had said she would be treated like a “normal person”
    3. she felt she had been harassed and that the landlord’s actions amounted to disability discrimination
    4. an operative had attended on 8 June 2022 despite her cancelling the appointment.
  11. In its final complaint response on 5 October 2022, the landlord:
    1. explained there was a legal requirement for it to carry out gas safety inspections, and a legal requirement for the resident to allow access to carry out that inspection
    2. acknowledged why the resident wanted a more specific timeslot for operatives to attend, rather than a morning or afternoon appointment
    3. explained that it was not possible to guarantee a specific timeslot due to the fact that the contractor manages multiple appointments each day, and that each appointment requires a varying and unpredictable amount of time to complete
    4. acknowledged that communications with the resident about the appointments had been unclear
    5. apologised to the resident
    6. offered £115 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. This service is not able to make a legal declaration on whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010. Section 114(1) of the Act states it is for the courts to make this decision. Therefore, under paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, this Service will not investigate whether the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010, as it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue this claim, they would need to take independent legal advice.
  2. The Ombudsman can, however, consider whether the behaviour complained of amounted to maladministration and whether the landlord appropriately had regard to its equality obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s annual gas safety inspection

The appointments

  1. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 impose a legal obligation on landlords to carry out annual gas safety inspections at properties they own.
  2. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, she was obliged to allow access for the landlord to carry out its annual gas safety inspection with 24 hours notice. The tenancy agreement specifies that if access cannot be gained, the landlord may seek an injunction from the court. This could result in fines, imprisonment, or a possession order being made by the court.
  3. The landlord’s gas safety policy states that it will include in its correspondence with residents, advice that it could take legal action if it is unable to gain access to complete an inspection. The policy goes on to state that where the landlord has been unable to gain access within a reasonable time, it would begin the process of legal action.
  4. Transcripts of the webchats between the resident and contractor on 3 and 4 April 2022 have been provided to this service. The evidence shows that during the conversation on 3 April 2022, the resident requested that the contractor attended between the hours of 10am and 12pm on 4 April 2022. The contractor stated that it would add this request to its case notes. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable that the resident understood this to imply that operatives would attend between these hours.
  5. The evidence indicates that the contractor attended on 4 April 2022 at approximately 1.40pm and was unable to gain access. Later that day, the resident held another webchat conversation with the contractor. The evidence shows that the resident requested the contractor rebook an appointment for 9.30am on 6 April 2022. The contractor stated that it would send an email to the relevant team with the resident’s request. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that in the absence of any further communication to the contrary, it was reasonable that the resident understood this to imply that this appointment had been booked.
  6. Between April and June 2022, the resident engaged in correspondence with the landlord and contractor to arrange an appointment which was convenient. The resident explained that she wanted a two-hour appointment slot, or alternatively, a set appointment time. She stated that this was because she wanted a support worker to be at the property at the time of the inspection due to her disability, which causes her problems with mobility. The resident further explained that due to her past experiences with the contractor, she did not want to pay for additional hours for a support worker to be at the property. In her complaints, the resident also stated that she was not satisfied with being offered ‘all-day’ appointments.
  7. During a telephone conversation with the contractor on 11 May 2022, the resident requested an appointment for 10.15am. The contractor explained that it could not satisfy the resident’s request because it managed multiple appointments each day which require a varying and unpredictable amount of time to complete and then travel to the next appointment. Therefore, it could not guarantee a fixed appointment time. As an alternative, it offered the resident an AM or PM appointment slot, which the resident declined.
  8. Following this, the resident and contractor exchanged further correspondence in which the resident was offered one-hour appointment slots, which the contractor declined, and the resident was offered AM or PM slots, which the resident declined.
  9. The contractor attended the resident’s home throughout the day on 8 June 2022, and the gas safety inspection was completed the same day.
  10. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a flexible approach to carrying out planned inspections and make reasonable adjustments for residents with vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman also recognises that the landlord had a legal obligation to carry out a gas safety inspection within 12 months.
  11. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been misinformed during her conversations with the contractor on 3 and 4 April 2022. It explained that the operative communicating on the contractor’s webchat service was not aware that it would be unable to agree on specific appointment times, and that she should have been advised of this at the time. It apologised to the resident for the error and offered her £115 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the miscommunication. It also acknowledged the resident’s request for more specific appointment times and reiterated the contractor’s explanation as to why it could not satisfy this request.
  12. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable and appropriate. It recognised service failures and offered the resident compensation. It also acknowledged the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments, explained to the resident why it could not achieve this, and offered the resident an alternative which it believed it could achieve.

The communications with the resident

  1. In her complaints, the resident explained that she was also dissatisfied that:
    1. she had been informed of some appointments via text message the day before the appointment was due to go ahead
    2. in an internal communication, the landlord had stated that it would treat the resident like a “normal person”
    3. she had been threatened with legal action.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord was required to give at least 24 hours’ notice to carry out the inspection. The landlord’s gas safety policy states that it would communicate with residents in a variety of ways, including text messages. Therefore, it was in-keeping with the landlord’s policy that the resident was informed of appointments via text messages the day before.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that it was important to the resident for a support worker to be at the property at the time of the inspection. It therefore would have been more appropriate if the landlord had given the resident further notice of the appointments, which would have allowed the resident time to arrange for a support worker to be available.
  4. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its gas safety policy in relation to how it communicates planned appointments with residents.
  5. The evidence made available to this service does not include any communication in which the landlord states it would treat the resident like a “normal person”. In her complaints, the resident may be referring to an internal email dated 12 May 2022, which she had obtained by a subject access request. In that email, the landlord stated that it would treat the resident as it would “any other tenant” and offer her AM or PM appointments.
  6. The email dated 12 May 2022 was sent in reply to the contractor’s summary of the conversation it had with the resident on 11 May 2022, which explained why it could not satisfy the resident’s request for a fixed appointment time, and that it had offered AM and PM appointments as an alternative.
  7. The landlord was under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to its policies, procedures, customs and practices under the Equality Act 2010. It was also required to ensure that the resident did not suffer a detriment arising out of her disability. This could mean not applying rigid all-day appointments or AM and PM appointment times if it would subject a resident to a substantial detriment in accessing housing services.
  8. In this case, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the resident’s conditions prevented her from allowing access on the appointment dates or arranging any support she believed necessary on those dates. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not able to conclude that the landlord did not give appropriate consideration to reasonable adjustments. Indeed, the resident has communicated that she wanted the support worker in attendance not because of her disability but because of her previous experience with the contractors.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident has been caused further distress by the landlord’s internal communication. However, when considered in context, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord’s email amounted to treating her personally in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.
  10. The resident’s complaint that she had been threatened with legal action relates to several appointment letters sent by the contractor. The letters warned the resident of the potential of legal action if the safety inspection was not completed. This was consistent with the landlord’s gas safety policy. In those letters, the contractor warned the resident:
    1. not to disregard the letter
    2. that she had a legal obligation to allow access for the inspection
    3. that the landlord may take legal action if it was unable to complete the inspection
    4. that legal action could result in the resident’s gas being capped.
  11. Following appointments on 4 April, 14 April, and 9 May 2022 where the contractors were unable to complete the inspection, the landlord instructed solicitors. This was consistent with its gas safety policy.
  12. In a letter dated 18 May 2022, the landlord’s solicitors warned the resident that they had been instructed to begin legal proceedings on the basis that the landlord had a legal obligation to carry out the gas safety inspection and would seek an injunction from the court to gain access to the resident’s property if the resident did not allow access.
  13. The solicitors also stated that in the event an injunction was obtained, the landlord would seek to recover its costs, which could be in excess of £550. The solicitors further stated that if an injunction were obtained and the resident did not comply with it, the landlord would seek a secondary injunction which could result in the resident being found in contempt of court and the landlord seeking possession of the property.
  14. The Ombudsman recognises that the strong language in the solicitor’s letter will have caused some distress to the resident. However, it is important that the resident understood the legal obligations on both her and the landlord for the gas inspection to be carried out. This includes providing the resident with clear and accurate information about what consequences may follow if the gas safety inspection was not completed.
  15. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s communication with the resident was not unreasonable in the circumstances, as it had to be clear on the potential consequences of failing to allow access.

The compensation offered by the landlord

  1. The landlord has identified service failure in how it handled attempts to arrange the gas safety inspection with the resident. The landlord has acknowledged those failings, apologised to the resident, and offered her £115 compensation.
  2. The minutes of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint review meeting demonstrate that the landlord gave consideration to what level of compensation was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered was consistent with this service’s remedies guidance and was reasonable.

Summary of the landlord’s handling of the gas safety inspection

  1. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there has been reasonable redress by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident £115 it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process.
  3. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord undertake a review of its gas safety policy in relation to how it communicates appointments with residents and considers what reasonable adjustments it could make to timescales.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s annual gas safety inspection.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £115 compensation offered at stage 2 of its complaint process, if it has not already done so.
    2. Undertake a review of its gas safety policy and consider whether adjustments should be made to the timescales at which it communicates appointments to residents.
    3. Consider a reasonable adjustments policy in cases like this, where mandatory access is required.