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

City of Doncaster Council (202308766)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308766

City of Doncaster Council

4 November 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s report about interference with his gas meter.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The property is a flat where the resident was a tenant of the landlord, a local authority, until late 2023.
  2. In November 2019 the resident complained to the landlord that its engineers had mistakenly turned off his gas. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 November 2019 and apologised for this. It explained that the boxes (which housed the gas meters) were not labelled very clearly so it had confused his box with his neighbour’s. It agreed to more clearly label both boxes to avoid any repeat.
  3. The resident replied to the landlord and explained that the boxes were already labelled and so this was not a suitable solution. The landlord acknowledged this and agreed that it would communicate with its gas engineers and reiterate the importance of checking which box they were working on to avoid a repeat.
  4. On 16 September 2022 the resident complained that the landlord had repeated this mistake on 31 August 2022. He also explained that he had tried to raise a complaint about this on 31 August 2022 but that the landlord had not logged it. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 6 October 2022 and apologised for its mistake. It explained that it was the result of human error, and it recognised it was inconvenient for the resident to be without gas for an hour.
  5. On 9 May 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had repeated the same mistake. On 16 May 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It apologised for its mistake and explained that its engineers could not see the flat numbers marked on each box. It assured the resident that it would provide larger stickers to attach to each box to avoid any further mistakes.
  6. The resident was not satisfied with this response and escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 May 2023. He explained that the landlord had not accepted the dangerous implications of the mistake, and that the solutions it had proposed did not go far enough to prevent it happening again.
  7. On 5 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised again and explained it had discussed his complaint with its engineers. It also explained it would provide stickers to the whole block to ensure it did not happen again.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 June 2023. To resolve things, he would like the landlord to acknowledge that its mistake put him and his neighbour in danger and put in place more robust measures to prevent any similar mistakes in the future. We understand the resident moved to a different property at some stage in late 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which are referred to us prior to exhausting the landlord’s own procedure, unless we can see evidence of a complaint handling failure.
  2. The resident complains that the landlord failed to suitably handle his reports of interference with his gas meter from 2014 to 2023. We can see he first complained about this in November 2019, and then again in August 2022. The landlord provided stage 1 responses to each complaint.
  3. We can also see that the landlord appropriately signposted in both stage 1 responses how he should go about escalating his concerns if he was dissatisfied. However, the resident did not attempt to escalate these complaints to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, this investigation has not considered the landlord’s actions in 2019 or 2022.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s report about interference with his gas meter

  1. On 27 April 2023 the landlord mistakenly switched off the resident’s gas meter while attempting to switch off his neighbour’s as part of its annual gas safety checks. Once the resident realised this, he approached the engineer working on the meters and explained he had made a mistake. After initially disputing this, the engineer accepted they had and switched the resident’s gas back on. It is our understanding that this encounter lasted a matter of minutes from when the gas was first switched off.
  2. On 9 May 2023 we can see the resident complained to the landlord about the mistake. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 16 May 2023 in which it acknowledged its mistake and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It also assured the resident it would buy new stickers for the gas boxes which more clearly labelled each of them to prevent it happening again. The impact of this mistake was a few minutes of inconvenience. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s apology was a proportionate remedy to address this. We also consider the landlord’s proposed solution was a reasonable strategy to stop similar mistakes in the future.
  3. We recognise the resident disputes the impact of this mistake, since he considers it put him in physical danger. However, we cannot identify how this mistake had any safety implications. The resident considers that the mistake could have had grave consequences in different circumstances, and that the landlord should have acknowledged this.
  4. While we recognise the resident’s view, it is not reasonable when determining the impact of a mistake to speculate on potential impacts of the error within an entirely different (and more dangerous) set of circumstances. This would be a hypothetical impact, and it is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider or remedy such impacts.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 May 2023. He complained that the landlord had failed to acknowledge the severity of its mistake or propose suitable solutions to prevent it happening again. He followed this up with similar emails on 22 and 23 May 2023.
  6. On 23 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to try and schedule an appointment to fulfil its stage 1 commitment to provide stickers for each gas box. The resident explained that the boxes already had stickers, and that the landlord should instead put markings inside the boxes.
  7. We have seen photo evidence which indicates the landlord placed large flat number stickers on the outside of each box at some stage after this and marked in pen within each box. We can see the stickers were relatively large and more explicitly labelled each box compared to the markings in place previously. Therefore, we consider this was a reasonable means of preventing the mistake happening again. We also note that the landlord acted appropriately by fulfilling the commitments it made in its stage 1 response.
  8. On 5 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response and apologised again for its mistake. It explained that it had discussed his complaint with its engineers and instructed them to make additional checks when there are multiple gas boxes in one location. We have seen a gas safety brief issued by the landlord to its engineers in May 2023 which corroborates this. It also agreed to provide stickers to the whole block for each gas box.
  9. Ultimately, we consider these measures were reasonable and proportionate ways to avoid another mistake in the future. While we recognise the resident considers the landlord should have gone further and disciplined individual members of staff, it is not within our remit to make orders or recommendations of this kind.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that, when something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. Any remedy proposed must also be followed through to completion.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days from when it received the complaint. It is obligated to provide stage 2 responses within 20 working days of escalation.
  3. From the dates of the written correspondence, it appears that the landlord provided its stage 1 response within the timescales set out in its policy.
  4. However, the resident advises that he called the landlord on 27 April 2023 and raised a formal complaint which it failed to log. He explained he then had to chase this via email on 9 May 2023. While the landlord accepts he made this call, it does not agree that he raised a formal complaint, and it has treated 9 May 2023 as the date he first complained.
  5. There is no record of the 27 April 2023 call beyond an internal email exchange which refers to it on 30 May 2023. The landlord should have documented and been able to produce notes of this call. In the absence of this evidence, it seems reasonable to accept that the resident complained on 27 April 2023. Based on this date, the landlord was 2 working days late in providing a stage 1 response. The impact of this delay would have been very slight given how minor it was.
  6. On 5 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This was within the timescales outlined in its policy. In both stages of its complaint handling the landlord apologised for its mistake and proposed proportionate service improvements as per our Complaint Handling Code. Therefore, we consider the landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
    1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s report about interference with his gas meter.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.