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

Accent Housing Limited (202322132)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322132

Accent Housing Limited

25 March 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 fire being caused by a contractor.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property, which is a 1 bedroom, second floor flat.
  2. On 26 June 2023 a gas safety check was carried out at the property. The resident contacted the landlord (either on 26 or 27 June 2023, the date is not clear). He said that 10 minutes after the engineer had left, there was smoke in the property and his smoke alarms went off. He believed the contractor had leaned on the electric hob and turned it on. This had caused damage to the hob and a towel. He also said that the contractor had not checked the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms.
  3. The landlord spoke to the heating company and asked it to raise a “near miss” incident and take a statement from the contractor.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 and summarised that action it had taken following the resident’s report. Its investigation had concluded that it could not say that the contractor had turned the hob on. It noted that the towel would not have caught fire if it had not been left on the hob. It confirmed that the smoke and carbon monoxide alarm had been tested during the visit.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint. He said that it was unreasonable that the engineer’s statement mentioned the location of the cooker as a reason why it could not have been accidentally switched on.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2. It said that it had been unable to conclude how the hob had been switched on but the fire had been started by the presence of the towel. It had taken the correct action following the resident’s report.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to us on 27 September 2023. He said that the landlord saying it was impossible for the contractor to have caused the fire was not true.

Assessment and findings

  1. As part of our investigation, we are not able to say how the fire was started. We also cannot determine if the contractor was responsible for the fire. Our investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and whether its investigation and actions were reasonable.
  2. The landlord responded within a day of the resident’s reports of the incident. It contacted the heating company and asked it to record the incident as a near miss. It also asked it to investigate by speaking to the contractor. This was appropriate as a way for the landlord to understand the circumstances of the incident. It demonstrated that it had taken the report seriously in light of the health and safety issue.
  3. The landlord took on board the resident’s concerns about the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms not having been tested. It spoke to the heating company that same day. They advised that the gas safety certificate showed that these had been checked. We have seen this certificate. Given the resident’s concerns about this, the heating company offered to reattend to check the alarms again. This was declined by the resident.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 31 July 2023 and said as follows:
    1. Immediately following the resident’s report, it had asked the company to investigate and for the engineer to provide a statement. The engineer said that they had not conducted any works or checks in the area surrounding the cooker.
    2. It confirmed that the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms had been tested during the visit. The contractors had offered to conduct a further check for the resident’s peace of mind. He had declined this offer.
    3. It was not possible for it to say that the engineer was to blame for what occurred. The heating company had completed a “near miss” report and had fed this back to the engineer. This was not an admittance of any liability, as there was no evidence of any purposeful or accidental fault by the engineer.
    4. It had spoken to its Fire Safety Team. They had said that items should not be left near electric or heated appliances. The hob was designed to withstand the heat it generates. If the towel not have been on the hob, a fire would have been unlikely.
  5. This response was thorough and demonstrated that it had acted quickly and appropriately following the resident’s report. The landlord had taken both the resident’s belief and the contractor’s statement on board during its investigation. It appropriately reflected the information on its website about fire safety for residents. This says that tea towels and clothes should be kept away from cookers and hobs. Its conclusion, that it could not conclude that the contractor had switched the hob on, was based on the information presented.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint. He said that it was unreasonable that the engineer’s statement mentioned the location of the cooker as a reason why it could not have been accidentally switched on.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 10 August 2023 and said as follows:
    1. The stage 1 response had been a true reflection of what occurred.
    2. It appreciated that it was “not beyond possibility” that the hob could have been accidently switched on. However, it had appropriately summarised the engineer’s account.
    3. It had been unable to draw a factual conclusion from the 2 conflicting views and accounts. There was no evidence to prove which was correct. It was not possible to evidence that the engineer turned the hob on or to accept liability.
    4. It could only base its investigation on what was known. In this case a fire had started due to the presence of a towel on the hob. The hob being on, without the towel being there, would not have caused a fire.
    5. It was good practice for contractors to ensure that any potential health and safety risks were identified and dealt with. Residents should also keep any items away from appliances.
    6. Following the report, it had asked the contractor to complete a near miss report. It had also asked the contractor to speak to the engineer. The engineer had been reminded of the need to take care. This was not an admittance of liability. The steps it had taken were appropriate given that no blame or cause could be proven.
  8. The stage 2 response was an accurate reflection of the action the landlord had taken following the report. It demonstrated that the landlord had investigated but had been unable to evidence that the contractor had switched the hob on. It was appropriate for the landlord to point out that the towel had caught fire due to it being left on the hob. In doing so it did not place the blame for this on the resident. This was appropriate as it could not be determined how the towel was put on the hob.
  9. The landlord acted appropriately throughout and ensured the matter was investigated as a matter of urgency. It considered both the resident’s views and the statement from the contractor. It was appropriate for it to conclude that it could not say with any certainty how the hob had been switched on. Despite this, it took steps to remind the contractor and resident of how such incidents could be avoided in the future. This demonstrated a balanced and non-biased handling of the matter. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fire being caused by a contractor.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fire being caused by a contractor.