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

Home Group Limited (202308173)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308173

Home Group Limited

19 December 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 resident’s reports of a leak from an oil tank at the property.

Background

2.             The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident’s 2 children reside with her in the property.

3.             The resident reported a lack of heating and hot water on 5 November 2022, and an emergency engineer attended. He identified no faults with the boiler but noted that the oil tank in the garden was empty. While the resident was confused by this (she had filled the tank with 50 litres 2 days prior) she suspected it may have been stolen and ordered a large delivery.

4.             When the oil was delivered on 7 November 2022 a leak was discovered and the resident reported this to the landlord. She continued to have no heating or hot water and enquired where she and her family would stay as a result. The landlord logged this as an emergency repair and offered temporary accommodation which the resident declined as it was not in the vicinity of her work or the children’s school. Due to staff shortages, the landlord’s contractor was unable to attend until the following day.

5.             The resident logged a complaint on 8 November 2022 saying she was unhappy that she could not stay in the property and had lost money due to a defective tank. In its stage 1 response of 22 November 2022, the landlord said:

  1. An oil tank service was completed on 10 September 2022 which identified a missing lid, and a new oil watchman was required. No other faults were identified, fuel was present in the tank, and no visual or olfactory signs of a leak were noted by the Oil Firing Technical Association (OFTEC) registered engineer, or the resident.
  2. On 2 November 2022, a new sonar oil watchman was fitted, and the tank lid was replaced. The work was non-intrusive of the oil feed system and completed by an OFTEC registered engineer. The engineer advised the resident to place a padlock on the tank as she had expressed suspicions about oil theft.
  3. A Gas Safe engineer visited during daylight on 5 November 2022 and noted the oil watchman was flashing to evidence no fuel and looked inside the tank to confirm. No smell or visual signs of an oil leak were reported by the engineer or the resident, who told the engineer she suspected fuel may have been stolen. The engineer noted there was no padlock on the tank and no further tests were carried out.
  4. On 7 November 2022, during an oil delivery, a leak was identified by the fuel company operative who notified the relevant agencies. The landlord’s contractors were unable to attend the same day, but it had offered temporary accommodation which the resident declined, opting to make her own arrangements.
  5. Its OFTEC engineer attended on 8 November 2022 and noted that the oil isolation valve had been sheared and a strong smell of fuel was reported when approaching the property; there was clear evidence of a leak.
  6. Repairs were logged, its contractors attended on 11 November 2022 to repair the valve, issued a new certificate, and the oil spill was covered with sand until specialist contractors could assess the impact on the garden. It said the specialist contractors had since attended to collect soil samples, and the decontamination would be scheduled once the lab report was available.
  7. It had arranged temporary accommodation for the resident on 16 November 2022 for 7 nights.
  8. It would complete the decontamination of the garden before closing the complaint.
  9. It was unable to compensate for the 2 invoices provided by the resident on the basis that she believed the first delivery had been stolen, and there had been no evidence of damage to the tank at the time of its visits before the second delivery. Therefore, it was not responsible for either loss.
  10. It acknowledged the resident had advised feeling stressed and anxious and directed her to its insurance team, providing their contact details, if she wished to make a personal injury claim.

6.             The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 the same day and said:

  1. The oil tank was not serviced in September 2022.
  2. She had expressed concerns that the oil watchman was not working leaving her unable to monitor fuel levels, thus the engineer logged this for replacement, and a new lid.
  3. On 2 November 2022, the engineer told her the fuel level was low so she asked if there was a chance it may have been stolen or a problem with the tank as she had filled it in May 2022. She was told if there was a problem with the tank she would smell kerosene. There was a smell, but she assumed it was due to the tank being opened to check fuel levels. At no stage was the tank examined further.
  4. There was no hot water or heating on 3 November 2022, so she assumed fuel levels were low and ordered 2 boxes of kerosene to last until the delivery date.
  5. On 5 November 2022, the visiting engineer told her he should not have been sent as he was not an oil engineer. He looked in the tank and said, ‘it’s been drained dry’ and the tank was not examined further. The landlord said there was no evidence of damage to the valve, but it was never checked. Both engineers presumed fuel was stolen.
  6. If the relevant checks had been done the leak would not have occurred or the resultant upheaval to her family’s lives.
  7. The landlord had made no mention of the fact that on the day of the spill, 7 November 2022, she had no accommodation, advice, or support until 4.40pm and she had been left to take care of herself.
  8. They had been exposed to a carcinogenic and had no idea what the long-term health implications might be.

7.             In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 March 2023, it reiterated its response at stage 1 and added that:

  1. The local authority and environmental health agency had both been informed of the incident.
  2. A decontamination quote was received and authorised the same day the resident had been provided temporary accommodation.
  3. Contractors had removed and replaced the garden soil, but the resident then reported a strong smell of kerosene on 27 January 2023.
  4. It had re-engaged the specialist consultant to take further soil samples, which were taken on 14 February 2023, and a contractor attended on 17 February 2023 to check the tank for leaks. The tank was confirmed full of fuel with no signs of substantial leaks, but a small weep on the filter bowl was identified and repaired.
  5. The contractor returned on 21 February 2023, retested the fuel line, confirmed integrity of the tank, and cleaned up residual oil.
  6. It had just received the results of soil samples, on 1 March 2023, that confirmed contamination, suggesting there had been a further leak since the January 2023 clean-up which tied in with the weep that was repaired.
  7. It had arranged a further excavation and clean of the contaminated area, after which further samples would be ordered to confirm the issue was fully rectified.
  8. It would arrange for additional protection to be fitted to the pipework to prevent future accidental or malicious damage.
  9. The resident had reported the lid had gone missing again and a replacement was ordered.
  10. It sincerely apologised for the delay in dealing with the stage 2 complaint due to an increase in volume of complaints and a lack of resources.
  11. It confirmed some actions remained outstanding which it would progress and continue to update the resident, and once complete, it would provide an overview of its complaint findings.
  12. It advised the resident of her right to refer her complaint to this Service, but, in agreement with her, it would keep the complaint open until the outstanding issues were fully resolved.

8.             The resident replied to the landlord the same day and said there were still inaccuracies in its response. She had been taken to court by the oil company for failure to pay for fuel she had not ordered and was very stressed. She wanted to take some time to process and discuss matters with her solicitor, and would then revert to it.

9.             The resident then emailed the landlord on 14 April 2023 and said it had done no further work since 13 March 2023, and she had received no communication from it to confirm if the uplifting of the soil was successful. She did not think further soil samples had been taken. There was an exchange of emails between the parties, in which the landlord said it had been awaiting contact from her as per her email of 1 March 2023. It clarified dates when the scheduled work was done, of which she had been informed, and that it had no outstanding repairs.

10.        The landlord issued a second stage 2 response on 19 April 2023, summarising the timeline and actions set out in its earlier responses. It said results from the additional soil samples were received on 31 March 2023, confirming the clean had been successful and no contamination remained. It had ordered work to install protection over the pipework and recommended the resident add a padlock to the tank lid as it had gone missing several times.

11.        The landlord said it had undertaken a further review and, while the resident believed the landlord and its contractors were at fault, it had found no evidence of a leak until the fuel company attended. Once it was notified of a leak, it took steps to rectify, provided alternative accommodation, and undertook soil decontamination. It apologised for the unavailability of operatives on 7 November 2022 and offered £35 for this. It also offered £75 for complaint handling failures, £75 for poor communication, and £75 for disruption through multiple attendances.

12.        The resident declined the offer and, in July 2023, escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the 2 engineers who had attended in November 2022 failed to notice a split in the pipe and if the correct engineer had been sent and they had inspected the tank, none of this would have happened. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of fuel and pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13.        The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.

14.        The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

15.        It is also not within this Service’s remit to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for damage to, or loss of, her belongings. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are usually claimed via its insurance. Therefore, it is not addressed further in this report. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the oil tank

16.        The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligation to keep in good repair and working order any installations provided for space heating and water heating within the premises or areas associated with the premises. It categorises repairs, setting out timeframes for each (subject to availability of manpower and materials). These repair categories and timeframes are emergencies (24 hours), urgent (7 days), routine (28 days), and cyclical (as programmed).

17.        The agreement also sets out that the resident is responsible for the replacement or cost of any damage or neglect to fixtures and fittings, however caused, including the replacement of damaged fittings and installations (excluding damage attributable to fair wear and tear and acts of God).

18.        The resident believes the landlord was responsible for the situation as it did not conduct a service of the tank in September 2022 and its operatives either missed signs of damage or were not qualified to attend the job. However, the repair log shows that the landlord did carry out a scheduled inspection of the tank in September 2022. There were no reports made by the resident about the tank directly prior to this visit (which was noted as a due service) so it had no reason to conduct the visit other than for a routine service. The engineer that visited is noted as OFTEC registered, and there is no evidence to suggest they were not qualified to attend.

19.        The engineer who conducted repairs on 2 November 2022 also did not report any signs of a leak. The engineer sent on 5 November 2022 was gas safe registered and qualified to attend the job that was reported by the resident (loss of heating and hot water), particularly given that the report did not mention the tank. Further, there is no evidence that there was obvious damage to the tank on any of the visits prior to 7 November 2022 which the landlord’s operatives failed to note and act upon. There is also no evidence to show that the underlying cause of the leak was due to a failure on the landlord’s part.

20.        It is unclear what caused the sheared valve, although the landlord suspects it may have been stood on. The fuel company is expected to carry out a check prior to delivering oil into the tank and, as such, might have been expected to notice obvious signs of damage. There is also the possibility that the fuel was being stolen from the tank as it had no padlock; the lid kept going missing, and large quantities of fuel disappeared without an obvious trace.

21.        If the tank was leaking to the extent that 50 litres of oil was lost in 2 days this is likely to have been apparent both visually and by smell. However, no such signs were reported by the resident when she made her report of 5 November 2022, or noted by engineers in September 2022 or 2 and 5 November 2022. By contrast, the operative who visited on 8 November 2022 noted the smell of fuel immediately on his approach to the property, indicating the clear presence of a leak.

22.        Therefore, it cannot be discounted that the valve might have been sheared during a fuel theft or by accident by the company that delivered the fuel on 7 November 2022. It is further noted that the same fuel company later deposited the wrong fuel in the tank, necessitating a clean-up. It is simply not known how the tank malfunction occurred, and the evidence does not support that the landlord was at fault for this. Therefore, this investigation is focused on how the landlord responded once the resident reported the leak and if it failed to meet its obligations.

23.        The landlord categorised the reported loss of heating and hot water as an emergency repair. While its contractor was unable to attend the same day due to unavailability of staff, it attended the following day, in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord offered temporary accommodation on the same day the resident made her report; an unusual but positive step since it was reasonable for it to attempt repairs in the first instance during the allotted timeframe. The provision of temporary accommodation is generally offered in cases where the situation becomes long-term or of a particularly serious nature.

24.        The evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly to deal with the leak and carry out repairs (the valve was repaired on 11 November 2022). There were no avoidable delays in the jobs it raised (for the repair, cleanup, or soil testing), and it proactively chased specialists where delays (outside of its control) occurred. It liaised with the local authority and environmental health, and engaged a specialist environmental contractor to ensure relevant action was taken, and risks to health and safety were mitigated.

25.        The landlord contacted the fuel company (having to try repeatedly before a response was received) to establish what happened. While it could have argued that it was not responsible for the damage, and, therefore, the repair, it did not do so (despite the local authority suggesting the fuel company might be responsible for the cleanup).

26.        The landlord offered temporary accommodation 3 times before the resident agreed on 16 November 2022. While this may not have been in an ideal location for her, due to the remote location of the village and limited availability, this could not be avoided. She was understandably keen to move back to the property, and while the evidence shows the landlord tried to hasten her return, it could not do so without first ensuring the oil spill would not pose a health risk. In any event, the resident returned to the property and declined a further offer from the landlord to provide temporary accommodation while it attempted to establish it was safe for her to return.

27.        The evidence shows the landlord regularly liaised with the resident to keep her updated on the situation. Regular internal meetings were held and communication exchanged to get a swift resolution for her. The resident did contact the landlord frequently but the frequency of updates it was providing to her was reasonable, even if she might have liked things to move more quickly.

28.        The landlord also made enquiries about expediting lab results and the additional cost for this. It is to be noted that, while it is this Service’s expectation that a landlord would take prompt and positive action to resolve situations like this, it must also weigh the costs of those endeavours as it is accountable for its public expenditure. The evidence shows that the landlord went above and beyond in its efforts to resolve the matter expediently.

29.        The landlord completed the first repair and soil decontamination and replacement work on 11 January 2023, but the resident reported a strong smell of fuel on 27 January 2023. This required a further round of tests, an additional minor repair of a weep, decontamination and soil replacement, and then further tests to ensure the decontamination was successful. It is noted that the weep was causing a minor leak, yet the smell was notable enough to prompt the resident to report this. The leak caused by the sheared valve was much more significant, therefore, had this been present prior to 7 November 2023, it is reasonable to expect she, or the engineers, would have noticed the smell and reported it.

30.        The resident’s distress and inconvenience during the period of events are noted and understandable; she had a child undertaking GCSEs, and her son who is autistic struggled with the upheaval in particular. However, there is no evidence that these were caused or exacerbated by the landlord’s actions or failures. The only notable delay in the landlord’s updates was in March to April 2023. However, this was after her request to be allowed time to process and seek legal advice. While it might be argued that the landlord should have considered providing a brief update on the successful uplift, it is understandable if it was unsure if this would be appropriate given the resident’s request for time and space.

31.        In any event, where the landlord identified service failures, such as in its communication and complaint handling delays (the resident was advised at the outset of the delay in complaint handling timeframes), it has apologised and offered compensation for these, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It provided a padlock, replaced lids on multiple occasions, and installed pipe protection (which it was not required to do under OFTEC regulations). These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; and put things right. 

Determination

32.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from an oil tank at the property.

Recommendations

33.        The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if it has not already done so, pays the resident the £260 it previously offered.