North West Leicestershire District Council (202329499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329499

North West Leicestershire District Council

11 June 2025

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:
1. A gas safety check at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said his annual gas safety check would be carried out on 24 July 2023. The resident said he did not receive the letter. On the day of the appointment the resident was unable to allow access. The resident said he tried multiple times to arrange the appointment with the landlord’s contractor.
The resident made a formal complaint on 14 September 2023. He said the landlord’s contractor had missed 3 appointments. The resident also said he was receiving threatening letters from the landlord that blamed him for the appointment not taking place.
On 27 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said its contractor had been unable to access the property to complete the appointment. The landlord apologised if the letters felt “excessive” and said it had followed its “no access” procedure to remind the resident of his obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day. In its stage 2 response, dated 30 October 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident. It confirmed the decision in the stage 1 response was correct and offered the resident £50 compensation for missed appointments.
The landlord remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.
While compiling evidence to send to us, the landlord was informed its contractor had previously given it incorrect information in relation to the resident’s complaint. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint and made a further offer of £790 compensation to the resident. The offer was accepted.

Assessment and findings

Gas safety check

Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1988 states a landlord must ensure gas appliances are checked every 12 months. The landlord’s gas safety policy sets out its approach to annual checks:
1. It will take all reasonable steps to notify the resident of the appointment and agree access to the property.
2. If the resident does not provide access within a reasonable period (28 days) it will take appropriate legal action to access the property.
3. It is the resident’s responsibility to provide access to allow the check to be carried out.
The landlord’s contractor is responsible for arranging and carrying out the gas safety checks. The landlord has a process in place to ensure it meets its obligations in relation to timely checks:
1. The contractor will write to the resident with an appointment time.
2. If the contractor issues 3 letters and there has been no access, the landlord will contact the resident.
3. The landlord will issue up to 3 letters reminding the resident of their obligations under the tenancy agreement and the gas safety policy, before further action is taken.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident. It said his appointment would take place on 24 July 2023. The resident did not receive the letter. It is not clear whether the landlord was made aware of this. When the contractor attended the property, the resident was unable to allow access as he needed to leave for work. The resident contacted the contractor the following day to rearrange the appointment for 3 August 2023. This appointment did not take place.
On 31 August 2023 the contractor contacted the landlord and said:
1. 3 appointment letters had been issued to the resident since July.
2. Its operatives marked 2 appointments as “no answer”.
3. The third appointment was due to take place on 19 September 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident the following day and reminded him of his obligations under the tenancy agreement. It asked the resident to confirm the appointment with the contractor within 7 days. The letter also said that failure to allow access to the property would result in legal action.
Based on the information the landlord had received from its contractor, the sending of this letter was in line with the landlord’s no access process.
The resident called the landlord on 5 September 2023 after receiving the letter. The resident was told to confirm the upcoming appointment with the contractor. There is no transcript of the call available.
The landlord did not receive confirmation from the contractor the appointment had been confirmed through its agreed process. This caused the landlord to send 2 further letters to the resident on 7 and 12 September 2023. The last letter requested the resident to make contact “immediately” to confirm the gas safety check appointment.
The resident made his formal complaint on 14 September 2023. He said:
1. The contractor had failed to attend for 3 appointments, without notice.
2. On each occasion he had taken the day off work.
3. He had received “threatening” letters from the landlord stating he had not allowed access.
The annual gas safety check took place on 19 September 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023:
1. It explained its legal obligations regarding gas safety and the no access process it followed.
2. It set out the information received from its contractor. This stated 2 missed appointments were caused by the resident and 1 was cancelled by the contractor.
3. It explained that as the contractor had issued 3 letters, the next part of the process was triggered.
4. It apologised if the resident felt its letters were excessive but explained it had been following its process.
The evidence shows it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its contractor at this point. Based on that information, the landlord’s explanation regarding the letters received by the resident was reasonable.
However, the response acknowledged 1 appointment had been missed by the contractor. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation may be relevant when an appointment has been missed without prior notice. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord made enquiries to find out whether notice was given on this appointment. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 September 2023. He said the response did not address the fact from his perspective that the contractor had missed appointments on 4 occasions without prior notice. He said he was then threatened with legal action when he was not at fault.
In his complaint, the resident said the contractor had missed 3 appointments. In his escalation request sent after the gas inspection had taken place, he said the contractor had missed 4 appointments. This suggested some confusion on the resident’s part as to how many appointments were missed by the contractor. There is no evidence to suggest the resident contacted the landlord at the time to report the missed appointments.
The landlord requested further information from the contractor following the resident’s escalation request. The contractor provided the landlord with details of 4 missed appointments:
1. 24 July 2023 – Resident on site and could not allow access.
2. 3 August 2023 – Cancelled by resident the day before.
3. 10 August 2023 – Cancelled by contractor due to hold up on earlier job.
4. 30 August 2023 – Cancelled by contractor due to hold up on earlier job.
In its stage 2 response dated 30 October 2023 the landlord set out the information received from the contractor. It said:
1. Based on the information received, missed appointments had been caused by both the contractor and the resident.
2. It was still right for it to send the legal letters out in these circumstances, as the contractor had issued 3 letters.
3. Communication could have been better, and this had been fed back to the contractor and the landlord’s complaints team.
4. It offered £50 compensation for missed appointments, time, and trouble.
The evidence suggests at the time of its stage 2 response the landlord was unaware the resident did not receive the first appointment letter. The landlord was entitled to rely on the updated information received from the contractor. Based on that information, its response regarding the issuing of legal letters was reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the 2 missed appointments and awarded compensation in line with its policy. This was appropriate.
When the complaint was referred to us, we asked the landlord to provide us with evidence relating to the complaint. The landlord contacted the contractor again and requested copies all records relating to the gas safety check. The contractor informed the landlord there had been a clerical error on its system and in fact only 2 letters were ever sent to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its previous complaint responses were incorrect. It wrote to the resident on 17 July 2024 and apologised for the error made by its contractor. The landlord said:
1. The legal letters should not have been sent to the resident in the circumstances.
2. A meeting had been held with its contractor to discuss the resident’s complaint.
3. It had implemented a more “robust” approach to monitoring gas safety checks and the contractor would need to supply a report and photographic evidence for all no access appointments.
4. It offered the resident £590 compensation, made up of:
  1. £400 for time and trouble.
  2. £150 for distress.
  3. £40 for failing to attend appointments.
The resident told us he was happy with the apology and compensation offered. He said he was more concerned by the way the landlord did not listen to him and blamed him for the faults of the contractor.
In summary the landlord’s responses were guided by the information provided by its contractor. Poor record keeping by its contractor, and a lack of reports from the resident regarding missed appointments, made it difficult for the landlord to identify who was at fault. However, a robust investigation by the landlord, including requesting copies of the letters sent by the contractor, would have identified the contractor’s mistake earlier, and reduced the distress an inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is unusual for the Ombudsman to consider reasonable redress for offers of compensation made outside of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, on this occasion the landlord:
1. Proactively reviewed the resident’s complaint in light of new information.
2. Apologised for the mistakes that were made.
3. Reviewed its compensation offer.
4. Demonstrated learning from the complaint by:
  1. Meeting with the contractor to discuss the complaint.
  2. Putting in place measures to ensure the same mistakes would not be repeated.
The resident accepted the offer as a resolution to his complaint. These exceptional circumstances lead to a determination of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a gas safety check.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
The resident made his complaint on 14 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day in line with its policy. The evidence shows the landlord initially misunderstood the extent of the resident’s complaint. When the resident highlighted this to the landlord, it apologised and resolved the matter quickly.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. This was 8 working days after the complaint was recorded and in line with its policy.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day. The landlord contacted him on 9 October 2023 and said it needed a further 10 days to investigate his complaint. The resident could have reasonably expected a response by 1 November 2023 (20 working days + extra 10 working days).
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 October 2023. This was in line with its policy.
Following a review of the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted him on 17 July 2024. It offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling after discovering its complaint responses had been based on incorrect information.
Although the landlord misunderstood the resident’s complaint initially, this was dealt with on the same day and the landlord apologised for the confusion. Its handling of the complaint was in line with its policies.
Although there was no fault in the landlord’s complaint process, the process did not resolve the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident to bring his complaint to us, which was unfair. The landlord recognised this during its review and in line with our dispute resolution principles, sought to put things right.
Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £200 may remedy failings that had significant impact on the resident. Considering the landlord’s proactive approach to reviewing the complaint in light of new information, the apologies made and the offer of compensation, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a gas safety check.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

There are no orders or recommendations for the landlord to consider.