Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Bristol City Council (202230738)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230738

Bristol City 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a gas leak in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure joint tenant of the council since 16 November 2015. The resident occupies the property with his partner and their two children.
  2. The landlord told us there were no vulnerabilities in the household. However, its records show that the resident’s partner has a disability.
  3. The resident reported to the landlord on 4 January 2023 that there was a gas leak the previous evening. He contacted the national gas emergency service who capped the gas and supplied an electric heater. The resident went on to say that contractors who were working in the loft had caused the gas leak.
  4. On 5 January 2023, the landlord attended and completed a gas pipework repair.
  5. The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 12 January 2023. He said that the landlord’s contractor moved items in the loft which resulted in the gas leak and there was no central heating in the property that night. He added that one of his children was scared to remain in the property and had to stay with their grandmother and his partner had to increase the use of her asthma treatments and was constantly checking the boiler.
  6. In its complaint responses on 3 February 2023 and 21 February 2023, the landlord accepted its contractors moved items during the loft insulation works. It agreed that there was a report of gas escape by the boiler cupboard on 4 January 2023 and the national gas emergency service disconnected the gas supply. It found that it subsequently restored the gas supply and agreed to continue with re–boarding the loft. The landlord explained that the gas escape was not related to the insulation works but was due to an elbow fitting failure.
  7. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family. It asked the resident to provide evidence of his lost wages, and increased gas or electricity bills, which it would consider reimbursing. The landlord upheld the complaint and made a goodwill gesture of £100 compensation for time, distress and inconvenience.
  8. On 26 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to dispute its description of the gas escape as small. The resident said the reason for the gas escape was its contractor’s actions. He alleged that the contractor placed too much weight on top of the pipe which caused it to break. He accepted the landlord’s response to the leak was quick and within its timescales but refused the goodwill gesture.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service. He said he wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the damage caused by the contractor and he found the gesture of goodwill insulting.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a gas leak in the property

  1. The Ombudsman considers whether a landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. In doing so, we will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within the complaints process.
  2. The landlord engaged contractors to install insulation in the resident’s property in January 2023. During the planned works, there was a gas escape. National emergency gas services attended and capped the gas supply. The following day, the landlord attended, checked the gas pipe and restored the supply. This was completed within 24 hours. The landlord’s repair policy says it will do emergency repairs within 1 day and the landlord complied with this. This was reasonable.
  3. The gas escape resulted in the resident’s gas supply being capped. This was during winter. The national gas emergency service provided an electric heater for the family to use until the gas supply was restored.
  4. The landlord’s contractor had previously agreed with the resident that they would work around belongings stored in the loft. When the resident’s belongings were moved in the loft, he contacted the landlord to say its contractors had not moved them to an agreed position. Before the landlord could arrange for its contractors to move the belongings to the correct area, the resident reported the gas leak. It is understandable that the resident believed the gas escape related to the contractor’s actions as he had previously reported his dissatisfaction with where it had placed his belongings.
  5. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractor and for maintenance of the gas pipework. The landlord appropriately checked the reason for the gas escape. It found that the leak was not due to the contractor’s loft insulation works. Evidence indicates that the cause was an inadequate fitting. The attending engineer concluded that the failure could have occurred at any time. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion it received regarding the reason for the gas leak and to communicate this to the resident.
  6. Nevertheless, the landlord recognised distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident and his family by the gas leak. It expressed regret, apologised for this and awarded £100 as a goodwill gesture. Given the lack of failings we have identified, it was positive and resolution-focused for the landlord to award compensation within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings of a short duration.
  7. The resident said he had incurred costs taking time off work and it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of any losses incurred. The evidence available does not show the resident provided this.
  8. Overall, it was reasonable that the landlord checked the reasons for the gas leak and appropriately restored the gas supply.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a gas leak in the property.

 

Recommendations

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 it offered in its final complaint response dated 21 February 2023.