Hightown Housing Association Limited (202302378)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302378

Hightown Housing Association Limited

14 October 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s report that the landlord did not complete the paperwork for the injunction proceedings at Court correctly.
2. Handling of the annual gas safety check and capping of the resident’s gas meter.
3. The related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom house. The tenancy started in October 2017.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has learning difficulties (this is stated on his housing application).
On 13 January 2023, the landlord sent the resident a gas safety inspection notice. This stated the last inspection was on 3 March 2022, therefore, the annual inspection was due, and an appointment had been booked for 18 January 2023
The landlord sent the resident a further gas safety inspection notice on 15 February 2023 informing him that an appointment had been booked for 6 March 2023. The letter also highlighted the actions it would take in the event the resident would not grant access.
On 6 March 2023, the resident refused to grant the landlord and its gas contractor access to his property and the gas supply to the property was capped.
On 15 March 2023, the resident granted access and the landlord’s gas safety contractor completed the gas safety inspection and confirmed that his gas boiler was safe to use. The gas supply was uncapped.
During a meeting with resident at its head office on 22 March 2023, the landlord agreed to raise a stage 1 complaint regarding its handling of the gas safety inspection. The landlord did so the next day and its notes of the resident’s complaint indicate this concerned:
1. The resident was unhappy about the actions taken by its staff to escalate the inspection as he believed these were dangerous.
2. The resident was unhappy that he was informed by staff that that there was no policy for gas safety checks or escalating cases to injunctions.
3. The resident also mentioned he had been recharged for a repair to his front door, but the notes stated that he understood what was happening and he did not need any further support to deal with this.
The landlord’s notes stated the resident’s desired outcomes were for it to:
1. Acknowledge service failures and to take appropriate action to address this with staff involved.
2. Offer compensation for service failures. The resident said he wanted £15,000,000 in compensation, however, it explained this was not something it could offer.
3. To confirm appointments for repairs and safety checks in writing giving reasonable notice.
In its stage 1 response dated 5 April 2023, the landlord summarised its contact with the resident up to the date he granted access to its gas safety contractor to complete the gas safety check on 13 March 2023.
The landlord also explained its duty to carry out safety checks on gas installations in homes that it owned and managed. It stated:
1. Completing safety checks was an important part of ensuring the safety of the tenants who live in the property, as well as other tenants and members of the public who lived in or are visiting adjoining properties or the wider block in the case of flats.
2. It was very sorry that he experienced distress as he felt it had taken dangerous actions in relation to his gas safety check however, it attempted to work with him throughout the time access was being requested
3. It considered that the action taken was appropriate to gain access to carry out the check.
4. It had not found any evidence that any actions taken by its staff or contractors were dangerous, or that any service failures occurred.
5. No compensation was due as no service failure had been found.
During a call with the landlord on 26 April 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with its stage 1 response to his complaint, and he requested to escalate all aspects to stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord’s notes indicate that it confirmed the details of the resident’s escalation request during the call with him including the resident’s desired outcomes which were for it:
1. To visit the resident at home.
2. Confirm the contractor who capped his gas and the name of the engineer.
3. Confirm which policies and procedures have been followed in relation to his complaint.
4. To pay him compensation of £50,000,000 in relation to service failures, recharged repair to door and gas capping.
5. To complete all outstanding repairs including bubbled paint in bathroom.
The landlord told the resident during the call that it aimed to reply within 15 working days.
On 22 May 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 final complaint response. This stated:
1. It was committed to ensuring the safety of its residents and it was legally obliged to carry out inspections of the gas installation every year.
2. As the resident did not allow access to his home for this work to take place, it had no option, and took necessary and appropriate action to attempt to gain access to the property to carry out gas checks.
3. It had not found evidence of any service failures that occurred and confirmed that no compensation was due to him.
4. It had taken steps to ensure that appointments with him continued to be confirmed in writing.
5. It understood that it had raised a number of other matters relating to his tenancy and repairs with its head of housing (HH) outside of this formal complaint. Its HH would be writing to him separately to confirm its position regarding these.
6. It had carried out its review of his complaint in accordance with its complaints policy details of which could be found on its website (the landlord provided the link). Alternatively, if he would like a paper copy, he could request from its HH (the landlord provided her contact phone number).

Assessment and findings

Outside of Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. Furthermore, paragraph 42.f states the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
In November 2022, the landlord applied to the county court for an injunction to gain access to the resident’s home to enable it to carry out an electrical safety check at the property. In his subsequent formal complaint, the resident raised a concern that the paperwork for the injunction proceedings at the county court were not completed correctly by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraphs 42.e and 42.f, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s concern regarding the landlord’s application to the county court for the injunction to complete an electrical safety check or any other matter raised relating to these proceedings as this is a matter for the court to consider. The resident has been made aware of this.

The landlord’s handling of an annual gas safety check and the capping of the resident’s gas meter

The landlord initially commenced its efforts to complete the annual gas safety check at the resident’s home on 13 January 2023 when it sent him a gas safety inspection notice. This was in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (gas safety regulations) which requires landlords to maintain all gas appliances within its properties and arrange annual safety checks on such appliances (within 1 year of the previous inspection).
As the landlord contacted the resident approximately 7 weeks prior to the expiry of the previous safety certificate, the landlord provided adequate advance warning of the gas safety check to the resident. The notice made clear the obligation on the landlord to complete the annual gas safety check at his property which was appropriate. It also informed the resident that it had booked an appointment for 18 January 2023. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is required to give the resident 24 hours’ notice of access to the property to carry out works. Therefore, by providing 5 days’ notice of the appointment, the landlord acted reasonably. Furthermore, the letter also included contact details for the resident to re-arrange the appointment if this date was inconvenient which was appropriate.
As no access was provided for the gas safety inspection of 18 January 2023 and the resident did not rebook the appointment, on 15 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident a second letter informing him that the appointment had been rebooked for 6 March 2023. While it is clear the landlord had attempted to call the resident in the interim period on 27 January 2023 and 14 February 2023 to discuss the outstanding gas safety inspection, its attempts were unsuccessful.
Given that the expiry of the gas safety certificate was approaching, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have written to the resident reminding him of the outstanding gas safety inspection within a few days of the resident refusing access on 18 January 2023. Its failure to do so at this time or immediately after the first occasion it was unable to reach him by phone on 27 January 2023, meant nearly 4 weeks passed before the resident received the next reminder of the inspection due. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.
As the resident did not contact the gas safety contractor to rearrange the appointment at any time and no access was given by the resident on 6 March 2023, they capped the gas supply to the resident’s home on 6 March 2023. This was in accordance with the landlord’s asset management procedure (gas safety policy) which states the landlord will cap the gas supply as soon as the gas safety inspection becomes overdue. It is evident that in its second letter to the resident dated 15 February 2023, the landlord had informed the resident that it intended to take this action if it had not been able to carry out the safety inspection by the time it became overdue.
Therefore, overall, the landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access to the property before it decided to cap the gas supply on 6 March 2023, which the resident had due warning of. The landlord had written to the resident twice and attended the property on 2 occasions as well attempting to call the resident to discuss the outstanding gas safety check.
It is noted that following the landlord’s calls to the resident on 7, 8 and 9 March 2023 during which it told the resident that the gas supply would be uncapped if the safety check went ahead, the resident granted access on 15 March 2023. The safety check was completed, appliances deemed safe and the gas supply was uncapped on this date.
In his formal complaint the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy about the actions taken by its staff to escalate the inspection as he believed these were dangerous. It is recognised that the actions taken by the landlord including capping his gas supply caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, this investigation found no evidence to support his belief that the landlord’s actions taken to ensure the gas fittings and appliances in his home were properly maintained, were improper or put the resident in danger. As mentioned above, the landlord was legally obliged to complete the annual gas safety inspection to prevent /reduce the risk of harm being caused to the resident and wider community by a potentially unsafe or faulty gas appliance or fitting. It is noted that during the timeframe investigated the landlord asked the resident if there was any additional support it could provide to him and made a referral to an external support agency due to concerns it had regarding the resident’s wellbeing.
In its complaint responses the landlord explained to the resident the requirement for it to conduct annual gas safety inspections and the reasons for this. It also said it could find no evidence that any action taken by its staff or gas safety contractors were dangerous but said it was very sorry he experienced distress. On balance the landlord’s response was appropriate as it explained its position in relation to the resident’s point raised which was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord had a legal duty to complete the annual gas safety inspection at the resident’s property and it took reasonable and proportionate action to ensure it was able to complete this. This includes capping the resident’s gas supply. While it is acknowledged this action may have caused some harm and inconvenience to the resident, it had to balance this with the potentially more serious impact of there being an issue with his gas installation or fittings which could lead to gas leaks, fires or explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning. No evidence has been found which suggests the landlord’s behaviour or conduct was inappropriate and on balance, it considered the resident’s personal circumstances while handling the gas safety check. Nonetheless, as the expiry of the existing gas safety certificate approached, more frequent written contact with him after its initial gas safety notice may have more effectively managed the resident’s expectations.
While a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to consider learning from this finding to better manage the resident’s expectations in the future, this failing is insufficient to constitute any maladministration by the landlord while handling the annual gas safety check and capping off the resident’s gas meter.

Complaint handling

In his formal complaint the resident raised a concern about being informed by staff that that there was no policy for gas safety checks or escalating cases to injunctions.
As mentioned above the landlord has a gas safety policy which sets out its process for non-access to properties for gas servicing. This includes details about when it will commence legal proceedings and steps its staff/contractors should follow leading up to the gas safety check and after any action to cap the gas supply. However, the landlord failed to mention or refer to its policy (or the previous version that applied at the time of the complaint) when responding to the resident’s concern during the complaints process. The landlord has also supplied us with its ‘contractors code of conduct’ however again it did not refer to this in its complaint responses to the resident.
This Service expects the landlord, where relevant, to reference policies and procedures when addressing concerns raised during the complaints process to back up any position given in its responses. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states the landlord must state clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
Bearing in mind that the resident had specifically raised concerns about its policies in relation to gas safety and staff/contractor conduct and had requested for it to confirm the policies it followed when handling the gas safety inspection, it should have provided these to enable him to understand its decision-making. Its failure to reference these policies in its complaints responses or provide them or signpost the resident to these, shows it was not customer focussed or transparent when handling the resident’s complaint.
It is noted that the resident also requested for the landlord to confirm the contractor who capped his gas and the name of the engineer. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord does not have to give engineers’ names but should acknowledge that the resident asked for this information. The landlord did not address this request therefore this constitutes poor complaint handling by the landlord.
During the meeting with the landlord in which the resident asked for it to log a stage 1 complaint, he raised the matter of the landlord having recharged him for a repair to his front door (due to the Police previously forcing entry in regard to a matter not related to this complaint). While the landlord’s notes of the meeting stated the resident told the landlord that he understood the reasons for this recharge and that he did not need any support to deal with this, it is evident that the resident raised this matter again at stage 2 when he requested it pay him compensation for this.
The Code makes clear the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint yet the landlord’s complaint responses at both stages of its process failed to explain its position in relation to the recharge of the repair to his front door or address the resident’s request for compensation in this regard. The landlord’s lack of any response to this aspect of the complaint was inappropriate in the circumstances and is further evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord.
At stage 2 of the complaints process, the resident raised an issue regarding outstanding repairs at the property including bubbled paint in the bathroom. In its stage 2 final response the landlord explained it would be writing to him separately to confirm its position in relation to this.
It is unclear from the available evidence if this was a service request or a new complaint however as this did not form part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and is unrelated to the main complaint, this Service would not expect the landlord to investigate this at stage 2 of the complaint process. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Code which makes clear service requests should not be dealt with as part of the complaints process. The Code also says where residents have raised additional complaints during the investigation (after the landlord has issued its stage 1 response), the issue should be logged as a new complaint. As such the landlord acted appropriately by not investigating the resident’s report of outstanding repairs made during stage 2 of its complaints process.
In summary, due to the failings identified above including the landlord not referencing relevant policies in its complaint responses or providing the resident with these to help him understand its decision-making, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraphs 42.e and 42.f of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that it did not complete the paperwork for the injunction proceedings at court correctly, is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the annual gas safety check and capping of the resident’s gas meter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Provides a written apology to the resident for failings in its complaint handling.
2. Pays the resident compensation of £200 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings in its complaint handling.
3. Provides us with a timeline for providing staff training on complaint handling including the requirement to reference the relevant policy, law and good practice in complaint responses where appropriate.
4. Provides us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review if it would be beneficial to residents to send more frequent reminders of pending gas safety inspections in the weeks approaching the expiry of the existing safety certificate.