Bromford Housing Group Limited (202229122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229122

Bromford Housing Group Limited

26 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas safety check.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 29 September 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord said it had no registered vulnerabilities for the resident, however through working with the resident during the complaint it is aware that there are vulnerabilities.
4. On 16 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint. She said a gas safety check was booked for 1 November between 12.30 and 5pm. The engineer attended just after 9am. The resident refused access as she had booked the time slot so that her son could be present as she had medical conditions. She said the engineer was grumpy and unpleasant. She contacted the gas contractor, but they refused to book another appointment as they had to wait for a card to be delivered. The engineer did attend later that day, but the resident was not expecting him to return so refused as her son was not present.
5. The gas safety check was then rescheduled, and the engineer attended. The resident did not believe that all checks were complete. The engineer was in and out of the property within 4 minutes. She did not feel safe as the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms had not been checked.
6. On 14 December 2022, the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It apologised for the issues raised regarding the first visit. It said it had asked its contractor to investigate the incident and it was waiting for a response. As the resident had advised that she did not want the contractor attending unless there was a representative from the landlord present. It said it would speak to her neighbourhood coach to see what could be arranged moving forwards.
7. The landlord sent a second stage 1 response on 27 March 2023. It said it had spoken to its contractor and that the engineer had said that he was in the area so called in, he did not realise the reason the appointment had been made for the afternoon was so that the resident’s son could be present. He thought it would help if he attended earlier. Its contractor and the engineer have apologised for the error and any distress it caused the resident. The engineer had been spoken to about him being grumpy and unpleasant and any necessary training identified would be undertaken. It had confirmed with its contractor that there were no outstanding works or services required at the property.
8. The resident felt that both responses did not address the complaint. She did not consider that the boiler had been serviced properly. As a result, she felt unsafe in her home. She was unhappy with the delays in the complaint handling. She wanted a further service to be completed and compensation for the delays and the service received.
9. On 31 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that the contractor was no longer employed by the landlord as it had brought the gas servicing in house. It had however checked its system and could confirm that a full gas service had been completed on 15 November 2022. It had a copy of the gas certificate confirming this and it had to conclude that the appointment was carried out correctly.
10. It apologised for the lack of communication from its complaints team. It said that it had been dealing with an influx of complaints. To remedy this, it had bolstered the number of complaint handlers in its team so it could get back to the appropriate service levels. It provided details of where it had failed and apologised. It offered £420 compensation broken down as:
    1. Delay in written response 8x £5 = £40
    2. 6 call back requests ignored 6x £10 – £60.
    3. 3 months of no contact from its complaint handler 3x £50 – £150
    4. Inadequate updated response that did not address your concerns – £50.
    5. Stage 2 complaint delay – 24 x £5 = £120
11. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said that the landlord failed to deal with the complaint in a timely manner and the landlord did not consider whether the gas safety check had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the gas safety check.

12. Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
13. The tenancy agreement states that access must be provided to the landlord to conduct an annual gas safety check. The landlord’s own gas safety policy also states that it will ensure that it fulfils its duties and responsibilities as a landlord by carrying out an annual gas safety check and service.
14. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the engineer’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. Where complaints included staff conduct, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
15. In its first stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised because it said it considered its service had fallen below expectations. While this Service recognises that it would be appropriate to delegate the investigation of the matter to its contractor it should have ensured this was completed in accordance with its complaint timescales. That it did not protracted the complaint process. It was also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage.
16. The landlord failed to provide any explanation for the delay within its second stage 1 response which was a further failing. It provided an apology from the engineer and explained why he had attended at the incorrect time. Its response however was vague and lacked reassurance that it would not happen again. It did state that the engineer would be given training.
17. Both stage 1 responses failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about whether the gas safety check had been completed correctly during the second visit. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to put matters right sooner. The resident had said that she had concerns about her safety which should have been responded to. She was vulnerable and left with the uncertainty of whether her appliances were safe which was inappropriate.
18. The landlord did go further to try to explain its position within its stage 2 response. It said that it had a gas safety certificate alongside readings taken the day the service was completed. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its specialist contractors and the certificate provided. However, it failed to address the resident’s specific concerns about the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. The resident had said that she felt unsafe, and the landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. The landlord missed an opportunity to address her concerns and put matters right within its complaint process. This has been considered in the orders made below.
19. It is acknowledged that the landlord advised that it no longer used the gas contractor. It therefore offered reassurance that there should be no further issues moving forwards. It failed however to consider whether compensation was appropriate in recognition of the shortfalls it had identified. This Service has considered this failing in the orders made below.
20. In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas safety check. While it was appropriate for the landlord to ask its contractor to complete the investigation into the issues raised. It failed to ensure that the investigation of the issues was completed in a timely manner. When it did respond it acknowledged that its service had not met the required standard. It failed however to consider whether compensation would be appropriate to put matters right. While it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its specialist contractors to satisfy itself the gas safety check had been completed. It failed to specifically address the resident’s concerns about her safety which was a missed opportunity to resolve matters earlier.

Complaint handling.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. The policy states that the outcome of the stage 1 complaint will be communicated with the resident. This will include any actions it will take to put the matter right and provide clear timescales as to when the actions will be completed. Following the response, it will monitor the complaint to ensure agreed actions are completed. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award discretionary compensation where it finds service failure and failures in its complaint handling.
22. The complaint process was protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing complaint responses, and the resident spent time and trouble seeking assistance to try to get responses. In accordance with its policy the landlord failed to monitor the complaint to ensure a response was provided within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge or explain its delays within its stage 1 responses.
23. The stage 1 complaint responses lacked learning, empathy, and a detailed investigation into the concerns the resident had raised. That the landlord admitted some failings by its contractor but did not offer redress, in the stage 1 complaint responses was also inappropriate.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the above failings right. It specifically acknowledged its delays and apologised. It also acknowledged that its stage 1 response had failed to address all of the concerns. It sought to put matters right by offering redress which was appropriate particularly given that the delays in its responses were substantial. This also evidenced the landlord sought to learn from the outcomes of the case, and its shortcomings at stage 1.
25. The landlord was unable to create a learning outcome in respect of the gas contractor at the point the stage 2 was issued. This was because the contractor was no longer employed by the landlord.
26. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the compensation offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
27. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £420 compensation would provide adequate redress for the complaint handling failures identified and is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the gas safety check.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the gas safety check.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm its position in respect of checking the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service also within 28 days.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £420 compensation as offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.