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

Somerset Council (202313492)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313492

Somerset Council

25 February 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 handling of:
  1. scheduling the resident’s gas safety check appointments.
  2. the resident’s vulnerabilities while dealing with his service requests.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has vulnerabilities and disabilities, including mobility issues, which are known to the landlord.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2023 and said his annual gas safety check was due. It said it wanted to arrange an appointment for 18 April 2023. It gave the resident the option to rearrange a more convenient date with morning and afternoon options. It also explained that for safety it would cap the gas meter after 3 failed visits.
  3. It is unclear when, but the evidence shows the resident rearranged the appointment for 28 April 2023. The gas engineer then incorrectly attended the property on 18 and 25 April 2023. The engineer left missed appointment cards that said they might have to cap off the gas supply if they could not gain access to the property. The resident then asked to reschedule the appointment for 2 May 2023, which the landlord successfully attended.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 2 May 2023 by telephone. He said he received a letter confirming an appointment for 28 April 2023 but the gas engineer attended on 25 April 2023. He said he is disabled and could not get to the door and the gas engineer left a missed appointment card. He said he had since received a letter threatening to cap the gas for missing the appointment. He also said he felt discriminated against due to his disabilities and said if his gas was capped, he would take an overdose of medication.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It said:
  1. It apologised for the gas engineer attending on 25 April 2023 by mistake
  2. It had accommodated the resident’s request to reschedule for 2 May 2023 between 12pm and 4pm, then again to between 10am and 2pm
  3. The operative rescheduling the appointments was not being discriminatory by asking questions and it was sorry the resident felt that way
  4. It could not listen to the call with the scheduler as it used a different phone system. It had fed back to ask if all teams could use the same phone system so it could get access to all call recordings in future.
  5. It had added a note to the system to attempt to make all future appointments after 10am.
  6. It apologised for any distress caused.
  1. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 16 May 2023. He said he remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had dealt with his appointments and that it had threatened to cut off the gas. He also said when rescheduling his appointment on 2 May 2023 the landlord accused him of threatening self-harm to get what he wanted. He said the stage 1 response did not adequately deal with that issue as there was no call recording available.
  2. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 13 June 2023. It said it was upholding the resident’s complaint. It reiterated it could not listen to the call with the scheduler as it used a different phone system. It confirmed only calls to customer service were recorded. It said that its staff were trained to work with residents who present with vulnerabilities to provide the best support possible when dealing with their enquires. It apologised for how the call was handled on that occasion. It said the operative had been spoken with and training materials and coaching had been strengthened. It also apologised for any upset caused and said it was able to take action to ensure it was in the best position to support its residents in the future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
  2. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Act, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s gas safety check appointments

  1. Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (GSIUR), landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
  2. When the landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2023 to arrange the annual heating service, this was in line with its obligations under GSIUR. The options to rearrange for a more convenient time and date were reasonable. It was also appropriate for the landlord to highlight the possible consequences of multiple failed appointments.
  3. On 18 April 2023 a gas engineer incorrectly put a no access card through the resident’s door, instead of a neighbour’s property. This was unreasonable. The landlord also issued a letter to the resident confirming it might have to cut off the gas supply if it could not get access. We understand this could cause distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. A gas engineer then incorrectly attended the property again on 25 April 2023 (instead of the arranged date of 28 April 2023) and put a no access card through the resident’s door. This was unreasonable and suggests the landlord’s record keeping or communication with its contractors was not robust. We understand this could have caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  5. The resident telephoned the landlord later on 25 April 2023 about the gas engineer attending on the wrong day. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 2 May 2023 between 12pm and 4pm at the resident’s request, which was reasonable.
  6. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident on 27 April 2023 warning that it could cut off the gas supply if there were any further failed appointments. This was unreasonable as the landlord had not yet attended the property on a scheduled date for an appointment. In addition, the warning letter was sent 2 days after the resident had rescheduled a new date for 2 May 2023.
  7. The resident telephoned the landlord in the morning of 2 May 2023 and asked to change the appointment from between 12pm and 4pm to between 10am and 2pm. The landlord arranged this, which was reasonable, and the appointment went ahead successfully.
  8. In summary, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s gas safety check appointments. It correctly sent the resident notice that the annual heating service was due in line with its obligations. It also gave options for convenient times and dates and explained possible consequences of missed appointments. However, it incorrectly attended the resident’s property on the wrong date on 2 occasions, causing distress and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord apologised for any distress caused to the resident. However, given that the landlord twice incorrectly attended the property of a vulnerable resident, an apology by itself did not put things right. In its handling of the resident’s gas safety checks the landlord did not demonstrate that it had due regard to its Equality Act obligations. We have therefore found service failure by the landlord. We are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused as a result of its failings in its handling of the gas safety check appointments. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not fully put this right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities while dealing with his service requests.

  1. The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 May 2023 to change the times of the appointment that day. The system notes for the complaint submission the same day state the resident said if his gas was capped that day, he would take medication to end his life. The resident has told this Service the operative accused him of threatening self-harm to get what he wanted. There is no recording of the call available and we have not seen any detailed notes of what was said.
  2. Although there is no evidence of what was said on the telephone call of 2 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It acted fairly and put things right by apologising for how the call was handled and explained the actions it would take to prevent similar issues happening in the future. It also said it had spoken with the operative and strengthened training materials and coaching. In addition, it confirmed it had updated its repairs system to reflect the resident’s preferred appointment times. The Ombudsman considers those to be reasonable actions to take in line with our dispute resolution principles: act fairly, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. In summary, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities while dealing with his service requests.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s gas safety check appointments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities while dealing with his service requests.

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of the resident’s gas safety check appointments.