Clarion Housing Association Limited (202228939)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228939

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 April 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 handling of the gas safety inspection and the warning letters sent to the resident in relation to this.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He resides in a one bed, ground floor flat and has been in occupation since 1995.
3. In August 2022, the resident received a letter informing him that his gas safety inspection was due. He promptly contacted the appointed contractor and requested an appointment in October 2022. It was the resident’s understanding that the Gas Safety certificate did not expire until November 2022. The resident was asked to put his request in writing, which he did.
4. On 3 October 2022, the resident made an appointment for the inspection to take place on 20 October 2022. The contractor confirmed this appointment in writing the following day.
5. On 18 October 2022, the resident received an email from the landlord advising that it had been trying to contact him unsuccessfully and that its contractor had been unable to gain access. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for 20 October 2022 and informed the resident that failure to allow access was a breach of tenancy and would result in legal action. The resident also received a written warning letter dated 18 October 2022.
6. The resident was unhappy with the communication received and raised a complaint on 19 October 2022. He felt that the email and letter contained inaccurate information and that the language used was inappropriate, constituting harassment. He wanted to know why he had received ‘threatening’ communications when he had confirmed the appointment for 20 October 2022.
7. The Gas Safety inspection was successfully completed on 20 October 2022, however, the resident received a further final warning letter dated 28 October 2022.
8. Within its complaint responses the landlord said that it had a ‘tight policy’ to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to ensure compliance with Gas Safety regulations. It acknowledged that the resident felt the communication was excessive, however, said that it was not its intention to cause distress. In addition, it said that the letters he received were standard process to act as a reminder of the appointment and to enable enforcement should this be required. In recognition of delays to the complaint responses and any inconvenience caused it offered the resident £200 compensation.

Assessment and findings

9. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 imposes a legal obligation on landlords to carry out annual gas safety inspections at properties they own. The landlord’s gas safety management policy says that it will ensure a check is completed at intervals of no longer than 12 months. To achieve this, it will aim to undertake an annual gas service program on a reduced cycle to complete checks in advance of their anniversary date.
10. The landlord has a comprehensive gas access policy in place setting out the steps it must take to gain access. Initially, the contractor will write to the resident to arrange an appointment for no later than 42 days before the expiry date. Should this appointment not go ahead then the contractor must hand deliver a calling card to the property offering a new appointment, this must be at least 28 days before the expiry date. If the resident refuses the second appointment but offers a reason, then the contractor must refer the case to the landlord while still making a further appointment with the resident. The policy states that if the resident is engaging then permission may be given to delay the gas access procedure.
11. Following 2 valid no access attempts the landlord will escalate to its ‘initiate proceedings’ protocol. At this stage the policy says that the landlord will send an initial enforcement letter even if the appointment has been booked. This will be followed 5 working days later by a final warning letter.
12. In this case, upon receipt of the initial letter in August 2022, informing the resident that his gas safety inspection was due, he telephoned the contactor and requested an appointment closer to the expiry date. He was asked to put this request in writing, which he did.
13. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show what appointments or access attempts were made between August – October 2022. However, the resident states that he did re-schedule appointments before committing to a date on 3 October 2022. At this stage the inspection was confirmed by both parties for 20 October 2022. The landlord’s policy states that escalation will only occur following 2 access attempts. In the absence of any evidence, we are unable to establish if the contractor did carry out 2 valid attempts, however, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was not aware of any impending escalation or action.
14. In addition to the lack of evidence surrounding the initial stages of the gas access procedure, there is also no evidence to suggest that the matter was escalated. The policy states that if the gas service is not carried out at stage 1 then a case will automatically begin within the landlord’s customer relationship management system (CRM). It is therefore difficult to assess what stage of the process the landlord was following. This lack of detail and transparency demonstrates inadequate record keeping.
15. On 18 October 2022 the landlord sent an email and a written warning letter to the resident. The landlord says that these were standard appointment reminders in line with its procedure. While it is good practice for a landlord to send reminder communications, the language used within the email and letter was inaccurate and inappropriate. It stated that the landlord had been trying to contact the resident unsuccessfully and that he had not granted access in line with his tenancy agreement. It is therefore understandable that the resident was unhappy given that he had confirmed an appointment for 2 days later. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to amend the content of the letter / email to clarify that this was a reminder of the upcoming appointment.
16. The resident was also unhappy that the letters ‘threatened’ legal action. The Ombudsman recognises that the strong language will have caused some distress to the resident. However, it is important that the resident understood the legal obligations on both him and the landlord for the gas inspection to be carried out. This includes providing the resident with clear and accurate information about what consequences may follow if the gas safety inspection was not completed. This element of the communication was therefore reasonable.
17. Following the resident’s complaint, it is noted that the responses at both stages exceed the timescales set out within the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge its failure in relation to this and offered the resident £100 compensation, £50 for each response. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
18. In addition, the landlord offered a further £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of an inaccuracy within its stage 1 response. The landlord stated that it had followed policy and therefore did not find a service failure in relation to its email and letter dated 18 October 2022. However, this response did not appropriately address the resident’s complaint. It failed to demonstrate any learning in relation to the reminder process and failed to acknowledge that the resident incorrectly received a final warning letter after the gas service had been completed.
19. In summary, the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that it did follow its own policy in relation to gas access. In addition to the record keeping failures identified within this report, it also failed to appropriately tailor its reminder communications and unreasonably sent a final warning letter after completion of the inspection. These failures resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the gas safety inspection and the warning letters sent to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

21. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident £350 compensation comprised of:
       1. £200 it offered within its final complaint response, if not already paid.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the warning letters issued.
       3. £50 for the record keeping failure identified in this report.
22. Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord must undertake a review of its standard letters in relation to gas safety access. The review ought to consider the appropriateness of the wording and how this can be tailored to the individual circumstances.
23. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above.

Recommendation

24. It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its gas safety access policy to clarify what constitutes a ‘valid access attempt’.