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

North Northamptonshire Council (202338820)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338820

North Northamptonshire Council

28 February 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 handling of:
    1. The annual gas safety check and the decision to apply for a warrant.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the lack of heating and hot water.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has complained to this Service that the landlord applied for a warrant for access to complete the annual gas safety check without giving him a fair opportunity to arrange the check. He said that he did not receive all the letters it said it had sent him about the check. The landlord has provided evidence it hand delivered a letter notifying him that the court hearing was scheduled for 9.30am on 3 January 2023. That letter told him he could attend the hearing if he wanted to. The resident does not dispute receiving that letter. Attending the court hearing would have allowed him to raise his concerns that he had not received the earlier letters asking him to arrange an appointment for a gas safety check.
  3. Paragraph 42 (e) of the Scheme states that that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The landlord notified the resident of the date and time of the court hearing giving him the opportunity to attend that hearing and explain to the court why he believed its actions were not appropriate. As the court proceedings allowed his attendance, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check and its decision to apply for a warrant is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2002. The property is a bedsit. The resident is vulnerable and suffers from mental health issues.
  2. In January 2020 a new gas meter was installed in the property. Credit paid onto the meter pays for the gas supplied to the property and for a daily standing charge levied by the gas supplier, which it deducts regardless of whether gas is being used or whether there is credit on the meter. The resident cannot access the gas supply if there is no credit on the meter.
  3. The landlord identified issues with the boiler following the installation of the new gas meter and it installed a new boiler on 26 February 2020.
  4. The resident reported a lack of heating and hot water on 10 and 20 December 2020. The landlord’s gas contractor (the contractor) visited the property and completed repairs on 11 and 20 December 2020.
  5. The contractor wrote to the resident and visited the property 3 times between October and November 2022 to tell him about and arrange to complete the annual gas safety checks. It was unable to gain access to complete the checks. The landlord sent 3 further reminder letters in December 2022 and applied to the courts for a warrant to grant access to the property.
  6. The court granted the landlord a warrant for access on 3 January 2023. The contractor completed the gas safety check on 4 January 2023. It capped the gas supply because the gas meter did not have sufficient gas for it to complete the checks.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 August 2023 unhappy about its decision to apply for a warrant for access to his property. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 of its procedure on 25 October 2023.
  8. The resident contacted this Service in January 2024 concerned that he had no heating or hot water. After further communication with the resident and because the landlord had not issued a stage 2 response this Service e-mailed the landlord on 15 May 2024. We asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 June 2024. It told the resident that other than the 2 repairs in December 2020 it had no record of any further problems with the boiler. It said that he was responsible for the debt on the meter.
  10. The resident contacted this Service on in November 2024. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wants it to pay the gas arrears and uncap his gas supply.

Assessment and findings

Scoping 

  1. The resident raised concerns about repairs to the boiler that the landlord completed in 2020 and 2021. The landlord addressed these concerns in its stage 2 response using the limited information available which showed it had completed repairs at the time. There is no evidence the resident raised further concerns about the boiler until it started the gas safety check procedure in October 2022. It was not until January 2024 until he raised concerns specific to the repairs the landlord completed in 2020 and 2021. The Scheme states that residents should bring their concerns to their landlord in a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Due to the passage of time between those repairs, when the resident next reported his concerns and the limited information available, this Service has not investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler. Instead, our investigation focuses on his concerns about the lack of heating and hot water in his home from when he raised those concerns in October 2022.

Lack of heating and hot water

  1. The landlord offers tenancy support to its residents including but not limited to assisting with benefit claims, providing household budgeting advice, and accessing professional debt advice or charitable grants. It has 2 Financial Inclusion and Support Officers in the resident’s area. The landlord’s welcome booklet tells residents that they should request a referral to its tenancy support from their Housing Officer. 
  2. During an attempted gas safety check on 21 October 2022 the resident told the landlord’s contractor he was having problems with the heating system. The contractor told the landlord about that, but it took no action to contact him. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to identify what his problems with the heating system were.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 and told it the gas meter was in debt. He said it was a result of a faulty boiler, and he did not think he should be responsible for the debt. The landlord did not respond to that concern. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a repair job to investigate whether the boiler was faulty at that time. It also could have asked him if there was any support it could offer with his energy debt.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it told the resident it was aware he had told the contractor that the meter was £100 in debt. It said the contractor had told him it still needed to complete the gas safety check. It missed an opportunity to set out its position that the resident was responsible for the debt and to ask whether there was any support it could offer him.
  5. The landlord continued with the gas safety check process with its contractor completing the check on 4 January 2023. The resident had insufficient credit on his gas meter for it to complete the check, so it made the gas supply safe by capping it. Again, the landlord missed another opportunity to understand whether the resident had any additional needs that it could have helped with.
  6. The resident forwarded an e-mail to this Service in January 2024. The e-mail had been composed on 19 April 2023 but there is no evidence this had forwarded it to the landlord in advance of this Service. The resident said that his gas meter was £150 in debt because of a leak in his radiator that the landlord had failed to repair. He said that the cold conditions were affecting his medical conditions. He also said that the contractor had told him it would arrange for the meter debt to be written off and carry out the gas safety check. The landlord holds no record of the contractor telling the resident that. It should have contacted the contractor during its stage 2 complaint investigation to establish whether it had said that, but it did not
  7. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response he was responsible for the gas meter debt. It confirmed it would not contribute towards clearing the debt. While the landlord’s position around contributing to the debt was reasonable there was a failing in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the lack of heating and hot water. That is because it did not respond when he reported faults in the heating system in October and December 2022 and it missed an opportunity to explain the tenancy support it offers during the attempted gas safety checks as well as at both stage 1 and stage 2. Given he had told it about his medical conditions, and it was already aware of his vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate to have arranged a meeting with his Housing Officer to explain what support it could offer. It could have then identified whether it should refer him to its tenancy support services. There was no evidence it considered doing that.
  8. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to inform him of the tenancy support services it offers. It should also pay him £150 in compensation. The landlord does not have a current compensation policy but that amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place from 1 April 2022 stated that landlords should acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide their response within 10 working days. The response time may be extended to 20 working days but the resident must be notified in advance of that. Amongst other things the stage 1 response must confirm the following in writing to the resident:
    1. The complaint stage
    2. The complaint definition
    3. Details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
  2. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it should acknowledge complaints within 3 working days if received by e-mail or as soon as possible for other methods. When issuing stage 1 replies it should set out what happened, why, and what it is doing about it. It should provide details of the remedies available to residents and include the lessons that it has learnt where is has got things wrong. It should provide its response within 10 working days which can extend to 20 working days with the agreement of the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a complaint on 11 August 2023. It has not provided a copy of that complaint to this Service. There is no record it acknowledged that complaint. It should have provided its response by 25 August 2023.
  4. After the landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident in October 2023 to discuss the issues he had raised it closed his complaint. It provided its stage 1 response, over 6 weeks late on 13 October 2023. Its response did not address his concerns as it only told him that it had closed the complaint following several attempts to contact him. It asked him to call it back.
  5. In failing to tell the resident that its response was stage 1 and not providing a definition of his complaint or details of how he could escalate the matter to stage 2, it did not provide the resident with information that was required by the Code. It also did not tell the resident what happened, why, and what it was doing about it as it should have according to its own policy.
  6. After the resident called the landlord in a state of distress on 23 October 2023 it sent him a further letter on 25 October 2023. It explained the reason why it had secured a warrant for access including the dates of the attempted visits. Again, that letter did not provide details of the stage of complaint or how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
  7. The resident contacted this Service in January 2024 forwarding an e-mail about the issues with gas safety checks and heating. After contacting the resident this Service identified that he had not received a response to his complaint. We contacted the landlord on 15 May 2024 and asked it to respond to his complaint.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 June 2024. It did not identify its failings at stage 1 and missed an opportunity to apologise to the resident. Its response provided all the information it was required to under the Code.
  9. Considering all the circumstances, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints, in that it:
    1. Did not acknowledge his stage 1 complaint and explain its complaints process to him.
    2. Delayed in responding to his stage 1 complaint.
    3. Did not provide all the information it was required to in its stage 1 response under the Code.
    4. Did not consider whether an apology for its failings at stage 1 was appropriate during its stage 2 investigation.
  10. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failure. This amount recognises the inconvenience experienced by the resident. Had it provided him with clear instructions on how to escalate his complaint to stage 2 it would likely have prevented him from having to contact this Service prematurely. That would have allowed it to provide its stage 2 response to him sooner.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check and decision to apply for a warrant is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a lack of heating and hot water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for its failings in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident the compensation amount of £300 broken down as:
      1. £150 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about a lack of heating and hot water
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.  
    3. Contact the resident and discuss any support needs. If required and the resident agrees, the landlord should refer the resident to its own tenancy support services or signpost the resident to relevant support, particularly around energy advice.
  2. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendation

  1. Once the resident has credit on the gas meter and the gas is uncapped the landlord should carry out a check of the heating system to investigate his concern that there is a fault that is causing a use of excess energy.