London Borough of Lewisham (202415887)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415887

London Borough of Lewisham

30 July 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s report of a repair to her boiler and the annual gas safety check.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She occupies a 2-bedroom flat with her children and moved into the property in 2015.
3. The landlord completed an annual gas safety check at the resident’s property on 21 January 2023. Later that year the landlord wrote to the resident with an appointment to carry out the next annual gas check on 6 November 2023.
4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and the landlord’s contractor (the contractor) on 6 November 2023. Her complaint was:
   1. The contractor did not turn up to the scheduled appointment that day.
   2. The landlord had sent her an appointment for a gas safety check within the same year as the previous one.
   3. When the resident reported a fault on her boiler due to low water pressure, the landlord did not visit to fix her boiler within the published timescale.
5. The contractor replied to the resident directly on 22 November 2023. It stated that the operative had produced a time and date stamped photograph showing his attendance on 6 November. It advised it was required to complete annual gas safety checks before the expiry of the current certificate. It also advised that an engineer had attended the resident’s property to rectify the boiler pressure issue on 7 November 2023. The resident made a further complaint about the contractor’s call handlers on 22 December 2024.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024. The landlord apologised to the resident for the service that she had received from the contractor. It also apologised for closing the resident’s stage 1 complaint after the contractor had sent its response. It stated that it would consider the compensation it would offer the resident and be in contact to communicate it.
7. On 21 March 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to explain that she was unhappy with its response. The landlord escalated the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 26 April 2024. It offered compensation of £20 for not attending to repair the boiler within its published timescale, and £50 compensation for the contractor’s call handling that fell below its standards.
8. In bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that she wanted the landlord to review its process for arranging the annual gas safety check, address the contractor’s failings, and increase the level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a repair to her boiler and the annual gas safety check

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair all installations for the supply of gas and heating. In addition, it states that the landlord will check and service gas appliances and pipework every year to make sure they are safe. This is also a legal requirement for the landlord, as set out in the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
10. The landlord’s emergency repairs response time is within 24 hours, which includes a total loss of heating in winter. The landlord’s response time for urgent repairs is within 3 working days, which includes for the partial failure of a heating system.
11. The resident telephoned the contractor at around 5:30pm on 6 November 2023 to report a fault on her boiler relating to low pressure. The resident advised the landlord in her complaint that she was given an appointment of 8 November between 8am and 1pm, which she stated was outside of the emergency target.
12. The resident had asked the contractor what the response time was for this type of repair, and the call handler had advised that it was 24 hours. It is not clear from the evidence whether the resident was experiencing a total loss of heating, or a partial failure of a heating system.
13. However, in the contractor’s written response to the resident, it stated that it had attended the property at 10:40am on 7 November 2023. It had cleaned the pressure sensor and topped up the boiler pressure. This was within the landlord’s published target for an emergency repair. Therefore, there is evidence that the contractor had attend the property within 24 hours.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that there was an appointment at the resident’s property that did not meet the published target of 24 hours. It is not clear from the evidence whether this was a separate incident to the repair described above. The landlord offered £20 in compensation for this event. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the where the landlord’s services have fallen outside expected standards, a discretionary compensation in the region of £10 to £50 may be considered. Therefore, the landlord’s response to offer the resident £20 for a missed appointment was appropriate.
15. An amendment to the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, which came into force in 2018, means that landlords can now carry out the annual gas safety check in the 2 months before the due date and retain the existing expiry date.
16. This Service has seen evidence that the annual gas safety check had been completed on 21 January 2023, and an appointment letter sent to the resident for 6 November 2023. The resident’s stage 1 complaint set out that she was concerned the contractor was claiming payment for 2 annual services in the same year. She had expected that her next annual gas safety check would be completed in January 2024.
17. It is reasonable for the landlord to have a robust process that makes use of the time available to enable it to complete the checks on time. This enables the landlord to make multiple attempts to access a property before seeking access through the courts in cases of no access. This also explains why landlords must keep robust records of attempts to access a property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange the gas safety check 2 months ahead of the deadline.
18. The resident reported that at the first appointment on 6 November 2023 she waited in at the allotted time and the contractor claimed not to have received access. The resident disagreed that the contractor had tried to attend the property for the appointment.
19. The contractor provided a photograph of the door of the resident’s block of flats, which is time and date stamped. A copy of this photograph was included in the stage 2 response from the landlord. The resident stated that she did not receive a call on the entrance system for the property. The landlord responded that it was unable to provide evidence that the contractor had called her on the door entrance system. However, the landlord had provided the resident with the evidence that was available and therefore this was reasonable.
20. One of the resident’s main concerns was the contractor’s response when she tried to rearrange appointments. The resident received a follow-up appointment for 23 November 2023. The resident was not going to be at home that day. She has advised this Service that the contractor refused to rebook her appointment when she contacted it by telephone. This meant that the contractor attended the property and recorded a further no access. The certificate was issued on the third attempt on 1 December 2023.
21. The landlord’s gas policy states that it will make all efforts to gain access. It is reasonable that the landlord has a robust process to gain access to carry out its legal obligations. The landlord’s policy and the tenancy agreement outline that it is a resident’s responsibility to allow the landlord access to the property for the purposes of annual gas servicing.
22. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of not being able to easily rearrange appointments, was set out in their stage 1 and 2 responses. It stated that it would expect appointments to be rearranged by its contractors unless the proposed date was too far in the future or went beyond the expiry date of the existing certificate. The landlord’s response was that it would raise this issue with its contractor to avoid it happening in the future. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about rearranging appointments was reasonable.
23. In her complaint to this Service and the landlord, the resident has stated that she was verbally abused by a call handler working for the contractor. This complaint was made on 22 December 2023, which was separate to the resident’s initial complaint. However, the landlord chose to address this as part of its stage 1 and 2 responses.
24. The landlord’s repair policy states that all contractors working on the landlord’s behalf are expected to treat residents with respect and courtesy. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 11 March 2024 admitted that the calls fell below the expected standards and apologised to the resident. In its stage 2 response to the resident on 26 April 2024 the landlord offered £50 in compensation to the resident for the contractor’s call handling.
25. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
26. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a finding of service failure that was of relatively short duration and included recognition of the resident’s distress. Therefore, we consider the £50 offer from the landlord to be reasonable redress for the call handling that did not meet service standards. This is also in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance for discretionary payments where a service has fallen below expected standards.
27. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the issues raised in the resident’s complaint were either reasonable or it had provided sufficient redress through its complaint procedure. This included apologising and offering the resident a total of £70 in compensation. In the circumstances of the case, this Service determines that the landlord’s redress has satisfactorily put things right for the resident in this complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

28. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). This required landlords to:
    1. respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of receipt.
    2. respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
    3. Exceptionally, the landlord could extend the response timeframe of either stage up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation.
29. The resident submitted her initial complaint on 6 November 2023, which she sent to the landlord and the contractor. The contractor sent a response 12 working days later. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint until the resident chased the landlord for a response. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 15 February 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024.
30. The landlord stated the reason for the delay was that the team believed the complaint had been addressed by the responses from the contractor.
31. It is not a breach of the Code or the landlord’s complaint policy to allocate the responsibility of responding to the stage 1 complaint to the appropriate service area or contractor. However, this should be clear to residents when they make a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord had communicated this to the resident. Therefore, the resident did not reasonably understand that a response from the contractor may be taken as a response from the landlord to her complaint.
32. If the landlord did not have an arrangement with its contractor to reply to complaints within its service area, then it should have advised its contractor not to issue complaint responses on its behalf. In this case, the contractor’s role in the landlord’s complaint handling process was not clear, and therefore its response caused confusion to the resident.
33. When the resident chased the landlord for a response, it sent its own stage 1 complaint response, resulting in 2 responses to the resident’s complaint. If the contractor had delegated responsibility from the landlord for sending out stage 1 responses, then the resident’s dissatisfaction with that response should have been acknowledged by the landlord as a stage 2 escalation.
34. The landlord’s lack of communication about the contractor’s role in handling stage 1 responses caused the resident to incur increased time and trouble. It meant that the resident continued to chase for the landlord’s stage 1 response when she had already received a response to her complaint. It also resulted in the resident receiving 3 complaint responses in a 2-step process. The landlord apologised to the resident for closing the resident’s complaint with the response from the contractor. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have also been clear about its arrangement with the contractor for sending out responses.
35. The landlord did not offer to put things right for the resident for its complaint handling failures through compensation in either of its stage 1 or 2 responses. It could have offered compensation in line with its compensation procedure. The landlord’s guidance for discretionary payments causing inconvenience due to a service failure such as this recommends compensation of between £51-250.
36. We find that there has been service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the impact of its handling of the resident’s complaint. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for a service failure where there was a minor failure by the landlord and it did not fully put it right.
37. The Ombudsman is currently conducting a systemic investigation in relation to the landlord using its powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. We will be sharing our findings from our special investigation shortly, within which we plan to identify failures highlighted in recent cases. As such we have not made any further orders concerning the landlord’s complaint handling processes.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of a report of a repair to the boiler and the annual gas safety check.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

40. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £170 made up of:
       1. £70 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
       2. £100 for the resident’s likely time and trouble caused by the service failure identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
41. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.