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

London Borough of Lambeth (202314858)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314858

Lambeth Council

29 April 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gas leaks.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 11 May 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block of flats. The landlord is a council.
  2. On 24 October 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her supplier capped her gas because of a leak. The landlord attended on 26 October 2022 and found a leak at the cooker and made the installation safe. On 20 December 2022, the resident reported that her supplier had capped the gas again because of another leak. The landlord attended the same day and ordered parts for the pipework to the cooker. It completed a further repair on 23 December 2023.
  3. On 4 July 2023, an MP complained to the landlord on behalf of the resident. The resident said that the landlord had carried out 3 gas repairs between October 2022 and March 2023. She said that she had to seek alternative accommodation throughout these repairs as there was no heating, hot water, or cooker. She said that the landlord failed to repair the gas leak which resulted in 2 “explosions” which she said were life threatening. This caused anxiety and she purchased an electric cooker. She reported that she was in rent arrears because of these incidents and had not received any compensation.
  4. On 6 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It provided details of its gas contractors attendances, and the work completed. It said that the resident should have contacted the third-party supplier who installed the appliance on behalf of the resident to check the connection as this is where the fault may have been. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s liability claim was being investigated.
  5. On 17 August, the resident contacted the landlord in response to enquiries about her insurance claim. She reported that she had been living in fear for 6 months because of the landlord’s failure to complete the gas repair on 3 occasions. She said that the landlord’s failure caused stress and anxiety, disruption to her job, and financial loss. She wanted the landlord to accept full liability for not ensuring her safety. On the same day, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. On 27 September 2023, the Ombudsman escalated the complaint to the landlord. We said that the complaint was about the landlord’s response to report of gas leaks which also affected the heating in the property. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted compensation for 3 weeks rent when she left the property when her gas cooker was being repaired and compensation for purchasing an electric cooker to replace the gas cooker.
  7. On 5 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. To investigate the complaint, it consulted with its senior mechanical engineer and its gas compliance manager and reviewed its records in relation to the resident’s concerns. The landlord said that:
    1. the third party who supplied the cooker was responsible for ensuring the connection met safety standards.
    2. its responsibility was to ensure the gas pipework into the flat was safe. It attached the hob as a goodwill gesture to ensure that the resident had cooking facilities.
    3. on each occasion that it attended it left the gas fitting fully functional and in line with safety standards.
    4. the resident had not requested alternative accommodation or alternative cooking facilities.
    5. its insurance company was considering the resident’s claim for a new cooker.
  8. On 11 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and refused liability for the insurance claim.
  9. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to provide compensation for 3 weeks rent when she left the property when the gas was being repaired and compensation of £399 for purchasing an electric cooker to replace the gas cooker.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The resident placed an insurance claim for her replacement cooker; however, this was not accepted. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as we can only consider the actions of the landlord, and we have no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the reports of gas leaks.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gas leaks

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its target time for responding to repairs. It will attend and make safe an emergency repair within 2 hours and fix the repair within 24 hours. Gas escape is an example of an emergency repair. It will respond to urgent repairs within 3 working days.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for repairing or replacing any fixtures or fittings put in without written permission. It further sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in working order any gas fittings which it provided or that the resident provided with its permission.
  3. Based on the evidence, the source of the gas leaks reported to the landlord were from the resident’s gas cooker. The resident installed the cooker, as such, the resident was responsible for repairs to her cooker and the connection to the gas supply provided by the landlord to the property.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it received a report on 24 October 2022 at 5:50pm that the resident’s gas had been capped because of a gas leak. It attended on 26 October 2022. This response was outside the timeframe for responding to an emergency repair within 24 hours. However, because the landlord was aware that the gas had been capped and made safe by the gas supplier it was a reasonable response time in the circumstances and within its timescale for urgent repairs.
  5. When the landlord first attended on 26 October 2022, its records noted that it and noted “test all okay”. While the landlord did not have a responsibility to repair the full installation, it was reasonable in the circumstances for it to do so given the concerns for gas safety and to allow the resident access to her cooking facilities.
  6. The records show that the resident’s gas supplier capped the gas again on 20 December 2022. The landlord attended on the same day and noted a gas leak found on the connection to the gas cooker. It ordered parts and completed a repair on 23 December 2023. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine liability for this repair, however, because the landlord had carried out a previous repair on the installation, it was a reasonable decision in the circumstances for it to carry out a further repair. Again, this repair provided the resident access to cooking facilities. This was an appropriate response by the landlord within its repair timescales.
  7. On 4 March 2023, the resident’s gas supplier capped the gas and noted a gas leak at the cooker hob connection. On the same date, the resident purchased an electric cooker. However, there is no evidence that the resident reported this gas leak to the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding because the landlord did not have an opportunity to inspect or repair the gas leak if it found that it had a responsibility to do so.
  8. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of gas leaks. This is because it responded to each report of a gas leak within appropriate timescales. It also carried out repairs beyond its responsibilities which was reasonable considering the circumstances of gas safety and providing access to cooking facilities for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of gas leaks.