Southwark Council (201913492)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913492

Southwark Council

8 December 2020

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 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 complaints are about:
   1. landlord staff capping the gas meter at the property during a gas safety check.
   2. the landlord’s response to the above matter.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. On 5 January 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. On the complaint form, she said that the landlord’s contractor attended the property for a gas safety check, but during the appointment her gas was capped. The resident said that she was not made aware of this at the time, and needed the meter to be uncapped.
3. The landlord responded the following day and advised that when the operative attended, there was no credit on the meter. It was explained that in such situations, its policy is for the operative to cap the meter until the resident has confirmed that the meter has been credited. It added that this was to ensure the safety of the appliances. The landlord asked the resident to confirm once there was credit on the meter so that arrangements could be made for the contractor to return and complete the servicing.
4. The resident replied on 7 January and said that she searched for her gas card whilst the operative was at the property; however, he did not mention at any time that he would be capping the meter.
5. The landlord replied on the same day and said an appointment could not be booked until the resident had confirmed that there was credit on the meter. It added that the sooner the resident confirmed gas was available, the sooner it could arrange for an operative to attend the property.
6. The resident confirmed that there was gas available, but stressed that the operative had not explained that he would be capping the meter. She said that she wished for the landlord to address this concern.
7. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident continued and the gas meter was later uncapped. On 2 April, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response at the end of April 2020. Within this, it set out the events that had transpired and explained that it had discussed the complaint with its contractor as part of the investigation. It said:
   1. The operative who had attended was one of the most experienced, and that he was well-trained in following procedures. This included telling residents that they would be required to reinstate their gas supply.
   2. It had reviewed the operative’s notes from the appointment, and the form – which was signed by the resident – read, ‘no gas credit unable to test, no gas card present’. Although, it acknowledged that there was no reference to the supply being capped.
   3. As the resident had sight of the form, she did have the opportunity to ask questions.
   4. The complaint was partially upheld, and it apologised that the resident had not been informed that the gas had been capped, and for any inconvenience that was caused as a result. However, it did consider that ‘every attempt’ had been made to try to arrange an emergency appointment to have the gas uncapped.
9. The resident was dissatisfied with the outcome and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Landlord’s policies

10. The landlord issues its tenants with a Tenant’s Handbook. This contains key conditions of the tenancy, and both the landlord’s and tenant’s obligations in respect of the property. The Tenant’s Handbook provides as follows in relation to gas safety:

“It is our legal responsibility to make sue that your gas supply and any gas appliances that are installed are checked, serviced and maintained. This covers any gas appliance, whether a gas cooker or a gas fire….

You must allow access to the property to allow our officers, contractors or agents to carry out any inspection or safety check that needs to be carried out at the property.”

11. The landlord’s Complaints Policy details how it handles complaints, and what remedial action it may take where a failing is identified. It provides:

“Where our service has not met our standards we will:

• Apologise for the failure in service.
• Explain what went wrong.
• Say what we have done to put things right.
• Where appropriate, say how we have learned from the complaint.”

 

12. In relation to putting things right, the Complaints Policy (the policy) says that this may include providing a service, backdating the service in question, stopping enforcement action or financial compensation. The policy explains that the landlord’s first priority is to resolve a failure and put things right – financial compensation is not an automatic payment when a mistake has been made. Where compensation is payable, it should be appropriate and proportionate.

Assessment and findings

13. The Tenant’s Handbook, as detailed above, explains the legal obligation on landlords to test and ensure the safety of gas appliances installed at its properties. In response to the complaint, the landlord explained that the operative had followed the correct procedure by capping the gas meter, as there was no credit available to test the system. It is noted that this is not detailed within the Tenant’s Handbook. However, given the legal duty on the landlord to ensure that its systems and appliances are safe, and the potential risks of an unsafe system, it is reasonable for a meter to be capped if it cannot be tested at the time of a safety check.
14. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it provided the resident with an explanation of why the meter had been capped. It acknowledged that the evidence did not show that the operative had clearly explained this to the resident during the appointment, and partially upheld the complaint on that basis. The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience that she had been caused as a result. However, the landlord’s response was not entirely appropriate in the circumstances.
15. It is acknowledged that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns promptly, and clearly informed her of the steps she needed to take so that the gas meter to be uncapped. However, the complaint response did not fully acknowledge the inconvenience that was caused to the resident as a result of the failure to communicate that the meter had been capped. In addition, the landlord’s Complaints Policy, as detailed above, provides that it will aim to put things right where there has been a failing. This will ordinarily include carrying out any overdue repairs or providing a service. Given the circumstances of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering some compensation, in line with its policy. In addition, the landlord did not detail any steps that it had taken to ensure that a similar failing did not occur in the future.

 

Determinations (decisions)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in landlord staff capping the gas meter at the property during a gas safety check.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the above matter.

Reasons

17. As the contractor could not carry out the gas safety check during the appointment, it was appropriate to take some measures to ensure that the resident was not left at risk. However, as acknowledged by the landlord, the decision to cap the meter should have been clearly explained to the resident at the time.
18. Once the resident raised concerns about the meter being capped, the landlord appropriately, and promptly, explained the steps that would need to be taken to uncap the meter. When the landlord issued its final complaint response, it acknowledged that the decision to cap the meter should have been explained, and it apologised for the inconvenience that was caused as a result of the communication failure. However, given the landlord’s complaints policy it should have reasonably considered making an offer of compensation, and should have taken some steps to ensure that there was not a similar failing in the future.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should offer the resident £50 compensation for the failing identified.

Recommendations

20. Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Remind its contractor to provide a clear explanation when gas meters are capped during a gas safety check, and to explain what action the resident should take so that it can be uncapped and tested.
    2. Consider issuing reminders to residents about ensuring that there is credit on their gas meters when gas safety check appointments are sent.