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

Ability Housing Association (202410761)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410761

Ability Housing Association

17 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about:
    1. It disconnecting his gas supply.
    2. His request for compensation for damage it caused to his gooseberry bush.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived at the property, which is a 1 bedroom house since 2009. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable due to having a disability.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property for an annual gas safety check on 14 June 2023. It reported that the resident’s flue was not long enough and needed replacing before it could issue a gas safety certificate. The landlord attempted to arrange appointments with the resident several times in 2023 to complete this work, but no appointments were arranged. It sent the resident a letter on 27 May 2024 stating it would attend on 11 June 2024. It said if it could not gain access, it would have to cap his gas supply, which it ended up following through with on 11 June 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 June 2024. He said it had disconnected his gas supply without notification and damaged his gooseberry bush. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2024. It said it had tried to access his property on several occasions to complete the required gas safety works. It requested that he contact it to arrange an appointment for it to complete the required works and to reinstate his supply. It offered £75 to cover the cost of replacing the damaged gooseberry bush.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested it escalate his complaint on 12 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 August 2024. It said it had been trying to arrange an appointment to complete gas safety works since August 2023. It explained that it could not reinstate the gas supply until it had completed these works and a gas safety check. It requested that he contact it to arrange an appointment as soon as possible. It maintained its response and offer of compensation for the damage to the gooseberry bush.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked us to investigate his complaint in September 2024. He said it had provided him with no notification of its visit in June 2024 and that he was still without a gas supply. In May 2025, he asked the landlord to pay him £100 for damage to his gooseberry bush. The landlord said it had offered £75 but, in an effort, to resolve the complaint it would increase this to £100.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident told the Service that the landlord had caused damage to his plants on 3 further occasions since his complaint in June 2024. These further occurrences have not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the resident needs to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint before the Ombudsman can potentially investigate it.
  2. In his correspondence to the landlord during the period it was investigating his stage 1 complaint, the resident raised historic issues that it did not respond to in its complaint responses. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have responded to these issues as part of its stage 1 complaint response or logged the issues as a new complaint. This investigation will consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in that regard, but will not consider the specific issues themselves, because that would need to be the focus of a new investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about it disconnecting his gas supply.

  1. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 state that all landlords are legally required to complete yearly gas safety inspections in all properties that have a gas supply. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he must allow the landlord access to carry out inspections and repairs. The landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice, but immediate access may be required in an emergency.
  2. In his complaint to us, the resident provided a picture of a gas safety certificate stating that this was dated 21 June 2023. He considers that the landlord had until 21 June 2024 to complete its next annual safety check. Therefore, he believed it had incorrectly disconnected his supply on 11 June 2024, as this was before the date his safety certificate expired.
  3. The picture of the gas safety certificate shows that this was dated 21 June 2023 but also that the next safety check was due by 21 June 2023. The evidence shows that the resident provided a copy of his certificate to the landlord in August 2023. It reviewed this and noted that this certificate was from 2022. It is evident that the gas safe engineer recorded an incorrect date on the gas safety certificate. Due to this, this certificate cannot be relied on to support what the resident says it shows.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to complete repairs identified from its gas safety inspection in June 2023, on 11 July 2023. However, it was unable to gain access to the property. Following this, it emailed the resident in August 2023 and November 2023 requesting that he contact it to arrange an appointment. We have seen no evidence that the resident responded to arrange an appointment. The landlord then sent the resident a letter on 27 May 2024 notifying him of an appointment on 11 June 2024. As it could not gain access on this date, it capped the gas supply, as notified in its letter.
  5. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained why it required access to the resident’s property to complete repairs before it could reinstate the gas supply. It requested that the resident contact it to arrange an appointment. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to contact the resident after its final response, such as in September 2024, to request he arrange an appointment. In addition, it requested assistance from the NHS and the local council to arrange an appointment after receiving contact from these organisations.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident why it needed to complete repairs before it could reinstate his gas supply. In addition, it was appropriate for the landlord to request assistance from other organisations to try to resolve this issue.
  7. In his complaint to us, the resident disputed that the landlord sent him notice of a required gas safety check in May 2024, as he did not receive this. The landlord also did not refer to this in its complaint responses. While the landlord did not refer specifically to this letter in its complaint responses, we have seen a copy of this letter, and it is reasonable to presume that the landlord sent a copy to the resident. It is unfortunate that it did not reach him, but we cannot say with any certainty that that was a result of any failing by the landlord.
  8. The landlord told us that, due to the resident’s individual circumstances and health needs, it has been making every effort to secure access through engagement with him rather than through formal legal proceedings. The evidence shows that the landlord has made numerous attempts to arrange repairs before and after it capped the gas supply. It is understandable why the landlord is reluctant to take formal action given the resident’s health. However, it is not complying with its repair obligations, which has left the resident without heating and hot water.
  9. As we set out in our Spotlight report on heating, hot water and energy, which we published in February 2021, landlords should prioritise customer care and good communication with residents. Legal action or injunctions to gain access should only be used when essential as a last resort. After capping the gas supply in June 2024, the landlord was aware that, without action, it would potentially leave a vulnerable resident without hot water and heating over winter.
  10. It is clear that the landlord is being mindful of the resident’s health, but it should balance this against the potential detriment to him being without heating and hot water. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System classes excess cold as a category 1 hazard. Therefore, it is important that landlord’s complete repairs to heating systems promptly. Due to this, and in the absence of any other options (its policy appears to be silent on what to do when access is repeatedly refused), it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the guidance in our Spotlight report, as explained above. There is no evidence that it did so. In the circumstances where the landlord and resident were at an impasse and he had been without gas services for a significant length of time, that was not reasonable.
  11. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have included an order for compensation for the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures. However, we have taken into consideration mitigating factors in our award, as the resident has repeatedly failed to arrange to allow the landlord access to complete repairs. This ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues, and the landlord is not fully responsible for delays caused by a lack of access.
  12. Overall, there was a failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s explanation of why it had disconnected the gas supply and its request for the resident to arrange an appointment, along with it seeking assistance from other organisations were reasonable. However, the landlord has not fulfilled its repair obligations and considered all the steps it could take to fulfil these. This has caused the resident detriment, as he has been left without heating or hot water for over 12 months.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about his request for compensation for damage it caused to his gooseberry bush.

  1. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not confirm that its contractor had damaged the resident’s gooseberry bush. However, it did acknowledge that he blamed the contractor for damage to the bush and apologised for the damage. It explained that its research showed the cost of a gooseberry bush was between £15 to £60. As a gesture of goodwill, it offered £75 to cover the cost of the damaged bush. It later increased this offer to £100.
  2. No evidence has been provided to show that it was the landlord’s contractor who damaged the resident’s bush. While the resident provided pictures of the damaged bush, this does not confirm who damaged the bush. However, it was fair, reasonable and resolution–focussed for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim and to offer compensation to try to resolve the complaint. While the landlord had not identified any failures on its part in the handling of the issue, its goodwill gesture recognised the detriment experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Within his complaint on 13 June 2023, the resident requested the landlord compensate him £5,000 for wrongly charging him £679. On 15 June 2024, he sent several emails to the landlord complaining that it had not responded to previous complaints or issues he had raised. He said that it had incorrectly accused him of owing £679.96 and threatened to evict him in 2023. He said it had not responded to his complaint about its engineer’s actions in 2023 or its failure to act in February 2023 caused his benefits to be cancelled.
  2. He also complained about its engineer damaging his thermostat in 2022, issues engineers had caused to his fire alarms, his toilet, front door, and boiler dating back several years. He said he had raised these issues with the landlord, but it had ignored them.
  3. The landlord did not address or respond to these issues within its complaint responses. In line with the Code, the landlord should have either addressed these issues within its stage 1 response or logged a new complaint. If it was not going to accept any of the issues raised as a complaint, it should have provided an explanation for its reason to the resident. We have seen no evidence that it did this.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord told the resident on 24 July 2024 that it would raise the £679.96 issue with its housing and rent teams to get further clarification and resolution. It asked the resident on 24 September 2024 for access to his property to investigate the repair issues he had raised. It also said that it had referred the concern he raised regarding his housing benefits form in February 2023 to the appropriate team to review and respond.
  5. We have seen no evidence that the landlord provided a further response to any of these issues. In line with the Code, the landlord should have provided a complaint response when the answer to the complaint was known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue were completed.
  6. Overall, there was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not address or respond in its complaint responses to the historic issues the resident raised during his stage 1 complaint, leaving these issues unresolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about it disconnecting his gas supply.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about his request for compensation for damaged it caused to his gooseberry bush.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £400. This is comprised of:
    1. £300 in relation to the failures identified in its response to disconnecting the resident’s gas supply.
    2. £100 in relation to the service failures identified with its complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks the landlord must write to the resident to explain that it needs to complete repairs to the flue and then complete a gas safety check before it can reinstate his gas supply. It should ask him if he can let it know of any support it can give him to allow it to do so. It should emphasise that it is taking such action to prevent him from being in a property for a second winter without heating or hot water.
  3. If it is unable to complete the repairs and a gas safety check within 4 weeks, within 8 weeks it should seek legal advice with a view to taking formal action to gain entry to complete the necessary repairs and checks. In doing so it should ensure it adheres appropriately to its relevant policies, such as its Gas Safety Policy.
  4. In light of the failings identified in paragraph 29, within 8 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to respond to the historical issues the resident raised during his stage 1 complaint in June 2024. It must either investigate the issues and respond to them or explain why it will not investigate them. In doing so it must pay careful attention to the expectations set out in the Code and its complaint policy.
  5. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the £100 it offered to cover the damage to his gooseberry bush.