Bassetlaw District Council (202311895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311895

Bassetlaw District Council

16 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s gas safety inspection and the decision to cap the gas supply.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 12 December 2016. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
A contractor delivers the landlord’s annual gas servicing over an 11 month period. A further 1 month period is to allow for issues where no access occurs to ensure the landlord follows its statutory duty to service gas appliances annually.
The resident had a gas safety certificate that was valid until 19 May 2023. On 6 March 2023, the contractor sent the resident a letter informing her that it had booked her annual gas service for the 21 March 2023.
On 9 March 2023, the resident contacted the contractor to say that date was not suitable, and the resident said she would be unavailable until May. The contractor booked an appointment for 15 May 2023.
The contractor decided that it was not suitable to wait until May to conduct the assessment as it left no time if the appointment was not able to go ahead on 15 May 2023. Therefore, it kept the original appointment, but did not communicate this to the resident at the time.
The contractor attended to complete the inspection on 21 March 2023, however, the resident refused access.
The contractor sent a further appointment letter for 29 March 2023. The resident was not in on this date and so it sent a third appointment for 6 April 2023.
On 6 April 2023, the contractor attended, the resident was not in, but the contractor noted a smell of gas and therefore decided to cap the meter as a precaution.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2023 saying she had needed to pay someone to attend to uncap the gas. The resident was unhappy as she had already arranged an appointment for 15 May 2023 and so was unsure why the contractor had even attended the property. The resident disputed that the contractor had been able to smell gas during the visit.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 April 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. A contractor capped her gas while she was away from the property following which the contractor left a note saying it was a third failed attempt for a gas safety inspection and had not noted the smell of gas.
2. She had a current valid safety certification and had already rearranged the appointment for May.
3. She had to pay £200 for someone to attend to uncap the gas supply and the landlord had left her without gas.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 April 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord apologised for the distress the process had caused the resident.
2. It explained its obligations under the gas safety regulations and its legal duty to check and service all gas appliances.
3. It went through the chronology of the events that led to resident raising the complaint.
4. The landlord confirmed that due to the time taken to start legal proceedings, if there was a lack of access, they could not leave the inspection until 15 May 2023 as it could have led to the resident being left without a valid certification.
5. It confirmed in previous years, the inspections had taken place in March and that its practice is to send out inspection letters 10 weeks prior to the expiry of the certificate.
6. The landlord accepted that it would have been frustrating for the resident to find her gas supply had been capped. It said it had investigated the residents claim that she could not get through to the contractors out of hours phone but had found no issues during that time.
7. It confirmed it would reimburse the money the resident had paid to have the gas uncapped.
8. In concluding, it did not uphold the complaint as it had followed its regulatory, legislative, and statutory duties. But acknowledged the card left on the third appointment could have included that the contractor smelt gas.
On 26 April 2023, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint’s procedure. They key points of her request were as follows:
1. The resident said she had rearranged the original appointment and neither the landlord nor the contractor had informed her the new appointment was not suitable. It had instead attended the appointment the resident had already said was not suitable.
2. The resident felt she had fulfilled her obligation by rearranging the appointment which is why she did not contact the contractor again to rearrange the further appointments.
3. None of her neighbours had spoken to the contractor on 6 April 2023. Furthermore, she had spoken to ‘Gas Safe’ who had said if there was a leak the contractor should have informed the gas distributor.
The contractor completed the gas safety check on 2 May 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that during a telephone call to discuss the complaint with the resident on 11 May 2023, it had discussed the landlord’s statutory duty in ensuring it carries out gas safety checks well within time of their expiry.
2. It confirmed it had raised with the contractor that it should never have arranged the appointment for 15 May 2023 due to its proximity to the expiry date of the certificate.
3. It confirmed it had spoken to the contractor who confirmed that a neighbour could smell gas, and they said you were away which is why the contractor capped the gas.
4. It said that a qualified person needed to undertake the gas reconnections and that its contractors 24 hour out of hours service would have been available for the resident to have the gas uncapped free of charge.
5. It confirmed that it would reimburse the £200 the resident paid, as a gesture of goodwill.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident disputed that there was a gas leak and did not understand why the contractor did not contact her when it decided the appointment on 15 May 2023 was not suitable.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement sets out that tenants must allow entry to the home to allow the landlord to carry out necessary works. Failure to allow access after notification would place the tenant in breach of their agreement which could result in it taking legal action.
Procedure 7 of the landlords housing procedure policy sets out that its annual gas servicing contract is delivered over an 11 month period. It sets out that the landlord will try 3 visits to carry out the gas safety checks after which it would refer a resident to the landlord’s legal department for possible court action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s gas safety inspection and the decision to cap the gas supply.

The landlord arranged to complete the resident’s gas safety service on 21 March 2023. This was 8 weeks prior to the expiry of the certificate and therefore within a reasonable period. Especially given that it had followed this procedure in the previous years.
Between the time the resident arranged a new appointment and the original appointment date of 21 March 2023, the contractor and landlord decided that the May appointment was not suitable. It chose to keep the original appointment date but did not communicate this decision or the reasons behind it to the resident. As a result, it was inappropriate for the contractor to attend on 21 March 2023. The landlord should have explained its reasoning for not accepting the May appointment to the resident and to have arranged a more suitable date.
After the first visit, the landlord, following its policy, sent a second appointment letter to the resident’s address. Since the contractor had already spoken to the resident during the first appointment and she had received the second letter, it was reasonable to assume she knew the landlord wanted to conduct the check sooner. The resident did not respond to the letter, so it was reasonable of the landlord to assume the second appointment date was suitable for her.
After the failed second visit, the landlord, following its policy, sent a third appointment letter to the resident’s address. Although the Ombudsman understands that the resident believed she had fulfilled her obligation by rearranging the appointment, it would have been reasonable for her to contact the landlord to clarify why the contractor had sent further letters, especially since she knew someone had attended the second visit.
Furthermore, the letters sent to the resident reminded the resident of her obligations under her tenancy agreement and the implications of not allowing access for the appointments. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident would have been aware the appointments were going to go ahead and the implications of not allowing access. The letter sent also detailed that if the appointment date was not suitable the resident should make contact to rearrange. Given the resident’s lack of contact, it was reasonable of the contractor to assume the appointment was suitable and to attend as planned.
When the contractor attended on 6 April 2023, the resident was away. It was during this visit that the contractor capped the gas which it said was due to it being able to smell gas around the meter. The Ombudsman is unable to determine if this was accurate; However, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to make decisions based on the situation they find at a property. Therefore, it was reasonable of the contractor to have used professional judgement and to have capped the gas supply for safety.
However, it would have been useful for the contractor to have noted on the visit card that it had capped the gas due to a suspected leak. Not doing so caused considerable confusion and frustration for the resident who came home to find no gas in her property.
In the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints process, she questioned why the landlord had not reported the suspected gas leak to the gas supplier, as she believed they should have. A qualified gas engineer decided to cap the meter and reported the leak to the landlord, who then tried to arrange a further inspection for when the resident returned home. The landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to make decisions in line with legislation and therefore, its decision not to report the leak to the supplier was reasonable.
However, the landlord did not respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It would have been useful for it to set out to the resident why it had not reported the leak to the gas supplier to provide some clarity and further understanding of the process to her. Landlord’s need to ensure they have clear and open communication with residents, which includes addressing all elements of a complaint.
In her formal complaint, the resident said she could not reach the contractor to arrange the uncapping of the gas over the bank holiday week, forcing her to pay £200 for her own contractor. The landlord responded that it had checked and found no issues with the telephone line that weekend, and she could have called the landlord’s out-of-hours line. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the phone line was engaged that weekend, but it would have been helpful if the calling card had included instructions on what to do if the resident could not contact the contractor. The lack of this information led the resident to incur the cost of uncapping the gas herself.
However, in the complaint response, the landlord offered to reimburse the resident the £200. Given that it had not been clear on its calling card as to why it had capped the gas and the resident’s reported difficulties in getting through to the contractor when she returned home, the offer to reimburse the cost of uncapping the gas was appropriate in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the gas safety inspection did not meet the standard expected by the Ombudsman. While the landlord followed its procedure in making the appointments, it initially failed to communicate to the resident why the appointment on 15 May 2023, was not suitable, causing confusion. However, the landlord continued to send appointment letters as per its policy and attended the appointments, as it had not received further communication from the resident. With regards to the capping of the gas supply, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to take appropriate actions as they consider fit upon attendance at a property. However, it would have been helpful if the contractor had provided further clarity on why it capped the gas.
This investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right by offering to reimburse the money paid to have the gas uncapped and reminded its contractor of the importance of making appointments within a suitable timeframe before the certificate expiry.
As such, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with section 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the gas safety inspection and the decision to cap the gas which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

As the finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying the resident the £200 already offered, the landlord should pay this to the resident if it had not already done so.