One Housing Group Limited (202344562)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344562

One Housing Group Limited

19 August 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 the resident’s annual gas safety check.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2005. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident told this Service she has impaired mobility. The landlord has told this Service that it is not aware of the resident having any vulnerabilities. However, the resident has mentioned having a disability over the course of the complaint.
3. In July 2022 the landlord visited the resident to book the electrical safety check that was due. It contacted her again in June and July 2023 to book the annual gas safety check because it was due.
4. On 19 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to book both safety checks. The landlord visited the property twice on 9 November 2023. The resident contacted the landlord the following day and said:
   1. it did not give her notice prior to its visits on 9 November 2023
   2. it could attend on 8 December and 22 December 2024 to complete the safety checks
   3. she has a lot going on in her personal life
5. The resident received a letter on 22 November 2023 that gave her a date for the electrical safety check. The letter’s date was 16 October 2023, and it was postmarked on 14 November 2023. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about its communication, the unscheduled visits, and the handling of appointments. The landlord escalated this to its complaints team on 27 November 2023.
6. The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 30 November 2023 and issued its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. It said that:
   1. it was sorry it did not let her know about its visits on 9 November 2023
   2. the gas safety certificate expired on 13 July 2023, which prompted the visits to either complete the check or arrange an appointment
   3. the gas engineer did not attend on 8 December 2023 as the appointment was not on its system
   4. it was offering £40 compensation broken down as:
      1. £20 for the distress any inconvenience caused
      2. £20 for 2 missed appointments (£10 per missed appointment)
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 February 2024. She said the landlord did not attend on 19 or 23 January 2024 to complete the gas safety check. Additionally, it did not contact her to book another visit. She also said it had given its solicitors false and misleading information about her.
8. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 6 February 2024 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2024. It apologised that the resident had so many issues with booking her annual gas safety check. It explained it did not attend on 6 February 2024 due to a miscommunication with the gas engineer. It confirmed that the gas safety check was completed on 7 February 2024 and upheld the complaint because it had failed to attend scheduled appointments.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 27 February 2024. She said she wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check. The landlord has confirmed the gas safety check was completed on 6 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

10. The landlord investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the gas and electrical safety tests at stage 1. However, the resident did not escalate her concerns regarding the electrical safety check to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the resident’s concerns about the annual gas service. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to complaints as part of its internal complaints process, prior to the involvement of this Service.
11. Furthermore, the resident told this Service that she wanted us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the annual gas service. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the one issue.

Handling of the annual gas safety check

12. Regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, says landlords must complete annual safety checks on gas appliances. It must ensure records are made and retained in respect of any checks.
13. The tenancy agreement acknowledges the landlord’s responsibility to give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice prior to visiting unless it is an emergency. Furthermore, it sets out that it will apply to court to access the property if it cannot access and service gas appliances.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will contact the resident in “good time” if it needs to change an appointment. Additionally, it will communicate effectively with its residents at all times. It offers the following appointments to its residents:
    1. Monday to Friday from 8am to 1pm for a morning appointment and from 1pm to 5pm for an afternoon appointment
    2. Thursday evening between 5pm and 8pm
    3. Saturday morning between 8am and midday
15. The landlord’s gas safety policy sets out that it will ensure there is a consistent process in place to obtain access to properties where checks are needed. It will proactively review the data available about the resident to help it gain access. Additionally, it will deliver an effective inspection and testing programme of all installations and equipment.
16. The landlord’s policies and procedures are silent in relation to timescales to respond to resident contact. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness, and whether it acted in a manner that was fair in all of the circumstances.
17. Following the landlord’s attempts to contact the resident about her annual gas safety check in June and July 2023, she emailed it on 19 September 2023. The resident asked it to book an appointment and specified her availability for the week beginning 6 October 2023. As the gas certificate had expired, it is understood that there would be a need for an appointment to go ahead as soon as possible. However, the landlord did not respond to her email and visited the property on 9 November 2023.
18. The landlord has a statutory duty to complete an annual gas safety check in line with the Gas Safety Regulations Act 1998. This duty requires landlords to take reasonable steps to complete the check. The resident was not contacted for 51 calendar days, despite her gas safety check being overdue. The lack of proactive communication and the absence of any documented reasonable steps is a failing. It missed the opportunity to book the safety checks promptly and caused an avoidable delay, causing frustration for the resident. To ensure it was compliant with its duty, a prompt response to the resident’s emails would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
19. When the landlord visited the property on 9 November 2023, it gave her a letter which told her she needed to book her gas appointment. A gas engineer later attended on the same day, left a ‘no access’ card, and placed a sticker on the resident’s front door. It is acknowledged that landlords may occasionally need to attend a property at short notice. This might be in an emergency, or when there are problems contacting a resident. However, this was not the case in this instance. The resident made contact in September 2023 to arrange an appointment for the gas safety check. The landlord did not show due regard to its obligations under the tenancy agreement whereby it will provide 24 hours’ notice ahead of visiting a property. This was not proportionate in the circumstances and was a failing.
20. Furthermore, the landlord’s gas safety policy says it will proactively review available data. While this is positive, there is no evidence it had it looked at any data before visiting. If it had, it might have found that the resident had contacted it 51 days earlier. As a result of not following its policy, it visited without notice. The unannounced visit could have been avoided had it taken reasonable steps to apply its policy. Therefore, its actions were unreasonable in the circumstance.
21. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 November 2023 and told it she had been unwell when it visited the property without prior agreement. While she did not explicitly say that the visit caused her distress, the tone of her correspondence indicates that the unplanned caused her distress and inconvenience. Additionally, she asked it to book the gas check for the afternoon 8 December 2023.
22. The landlord emailed the resident on 15 November 2023 to say it had tried to contact her to book the annual gas safety check. However, there is no record of it contacting her after its visit. Although the landlord’s gas safety policy commits to proactively reviewing available information to facilitate access, there is no evidence this occurred. It failed to make appropriate use of the information available and overlooked the resident’s appointment requests. The repeated shortfall in its information and knowledge management adversely affected its service delivery and the resident’s experience. To demonstrate the landlord adhered to its policy, it should have checked whether the resident had already made contact before sending the email. This would have avoided the added frustration the resident experienced due to reoccurring communication problems.
23. The resident responded that day and said it had not contacted her since its visit, and it did not reply to her 2 earlier emails. She asked it to keep emails on the same thread to avoid confusion. The landlord apologised the next day for the delays in responding and said it had told the relevant teams about her appointment request. It told her to wait until 30 November 2023 for a response. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delays and provide her with an expected response timeframe. It had not fully addressed her concerns about the prior visits, but the resident said she was happy to wait for a response and work with the landlord to complete the checks.
24. The resident received a letter from the landlord on 22 November 2023 for an electrical safety check. That day the resident told the landlord she was concerned about the communication problems with booking her gas and electrical safety check. Furthermore, she would log a complaint if the problems continued. She requested for future communication about the safety checks to be through email.
25. Between 24 and 29 November 2023, the landlord and resident exchanged emails. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused while trying to book the safety checks and acknowledged her request for contact to be through email. It escalated the concerns she raised in her emails on 15 and 22 November 2023 to its complaints team. This action aligns with its complaints policy, which aims to resolve issues like appointment problems or contact delays before escalating them. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to provide a full response to the resident’s concerns about its visits and communication.
26. The resident was expecting a response from the landlord about her gas safety check appointment request by 30 November 2023. However, it did not respond to her and confirm if it scheduled the appointment. The lack of communication within the agreed timeframe was a failing. It would have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s handling of the safety checks. The landlord should have contacted her as promised, instead of leaving her waiting for information, which would have increased her frustration.
27. Further emails were exchanged between 30 November 2023 and 4 December 2023. During this time, the landlord formally acknowledged the complaint and told the resident she would receive a phone call. The resident reminded it again that she wanted all communication to be via email. The resident’s need to request a specific communication method again suggested that she may have felt her needs were not being listened to. While not a failure, the landlord could have amended the wording to reflect she did not want to be called. The resident’s frustration would have been impacted by having to make the same request more than once.
28. On 8 December 2023 the resident waited for her gas safety check that she had requested 28 days prior. The landlord’s policies do not provide specify response times. However, given the overdue gas safety check, the landlord should have considered the circumstances and responded more promptly. As a result of the lack of communication, the resident was left in a state of uncertainty, leading her to unnecessarily wait in for a visit. This was unreasonable.
29. The landlord visited the property again on 12 December 2023 to complete a gas check. The landlord missed an opportunity to attend 4 days prior when the resident said she was available. This visit was unsuccessful as the landlord failed to confirm if the resident would be available. There is no evidence the landlord considered its duty under the tenancy agreement to provide 24 hours’ notice before visiting and was a failing.
30. On 14 December 2023 the resident and landlord agreed a gas safety check for the afternoon of 19 January 2024. This was 86 days after the resident’s initial request in September 2023 and reflects an unreasonable delay. It did not demonstrate that it was fulfilling its policy obligations to deliver an effective gas safety check regime. Furthermore, it demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s handling of scheduling the gas safety check. The safety check was overdue, and the communication delays prolonged how the long the matter remained outstanding. The lack of communication and explanation for the delays would have further impacted resident’s frustration.
31. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 December 2023, 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was in line with its policy and the Code. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused when the resident tried to book the checks. It explained the reason for its visit on 9 November 2023, the process it follows when booking gas safety checks, and apologised it did not notify her of the visit. It reminded her that the gas certificate had expired, and it encourages residents to proactively engage when contacted. Further, it offered her £40 in compensation. This was made up of £20 for distress and inconvenience, and a further £20 for missed appointments.
32. This response demonstrates the landlord had not given notice of its visit and had not responded to the resident’s earlier appointment requests. It took responsibility for not acknowledging the resident’s appointment requests. These were appropriate and reasonable steps to take to address its failings.
33. The landlord’s compensation policy says that for repeated failures to respond to residents, it will offer between £50 to £200. It also includes where there has been minor inconvenience or distress caused. This broadly follows our remedies guidance for service failure which suggests a payment of £50 to £100 if a resident was negatively affected. The landlord’s delays and failures in this case fell within this range. However, the landlord offered £20 for the distress and inconvenience which was unreasonable. This does not align with its compensation policy and we do not find its offer accounts for its failings.
34. A gas engineer visited the property at 12.10PM on 19 January 2024 to complete the gas safety check. The resident asked the engineer to return in 2 hours because she was preparing food to take with her medication. The landlord did not tell the resident the engineer was not returning to the property.
35. The repairs policy sets out that afternoon appointments are between 1PM and 5PM. Additionally, it says it will contact residents in ‘good time’ if appointments change. Despite this, the landlord did not contact the resident before arriving to the appointment early. It was not unreasonable for the resident to ask the engineer to return later. The landlord did not honour her request, and it did not inform her that the engineer would not be returning. This was a failing. The resident was left waiting unnecessarily causing her further inconvenience. This could have damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord’s reliability and communication.
36. A gas engineer returned on 22 January 2024 at 2.56PM and left a missed appointment card. The landlord has not provided evidence that it gave the resident 24 hours’ notice of its visit. Later, the resident emailed the landlord to ask if it could return on 23 January 2024.
37. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2024 to tell it no gas engineer had arrived. It told her it had no record of an appointment for that date and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The resident would have been understandably frustrated due to waiting in and the communication issues. However, it is fair and reasonable to allow the landlord more than 24 hours to reply to appointment requests.
38. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 and 27 January 2024. She asked it to provide her with an appointment date for the gas safety check. She told it that the experience has caused her distress. Furthermore, her physical health has been impacted because she has a disability. The landlord did not reply to her emails.
39. The Equality Act 2010 already imposes a duty on landlords to allow and make reasonable adjustments, on request from disabled residents. If a landlord understands the resident’s needs, it can it support it better when accessing its services. This can be useful particularly when accessing a property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take steps to understand the resident’s circumstances. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord gave due regard to its duties and was not reasonable in the circumstances.
40. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 February 2024 to tell it no one had contacted her to book the gas safety check. She told it that it provided false and misleading information about her to its solicitors regarding the annual gas safety check. Subsequently, she asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident emailed again on 5 February 2024 to tell it she had finally had confirmation of a gas appointment for 6 February 2024.
41. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 6 February 2024 which was in line with its policy. The resident responded that day to tell it that it did not understand her complaint and she would provide it further details the next day. She also informed it that an engineer did not arrive between 1PM and 5PM.
42. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will call residents in good time if there is a change to an appointment. In this case, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to tell her it was not visiting. The landlord should have followed its policy which would have avoided further distress and inconvenience to her.
43. The next day, the landlord visited the property again to complete the gas check without prior agreement from the resident. Nonetheless, the resident allowed the visit to go ahead. She later emailed the landlord to inform it the check was completed despite an unscheduled appointment. She said the experience was unbelievable and caused her distress.
44. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email, failing to demonstrate that it took her concerns seriously. There was a repeated pattern of non-response from the landlord that highlights concerns regarding its communication practices. The repeated communication problems would have increased the resident’s frustration. Additionally, it had taken 141 days to complete the gas safety check from when the resident initially contacted the landlord in September 2023.
45. On 20 February 2024 the landlord sent an internal email. It said the issues raised by the resident on 27 January 2024 should be considered as part of the stage 2 investigation. It was positive that the landlord identified concerns that should be addressed. However, it is unclear why there was a 14 day delay between the landlord acknowledging the stage 2 and this email. This delay suggests potential internal communication issues. When information is not shared effectively between departments, a landlord may fail to respond to its residents’ concerns in a timely manner.
46. The landlord visited the property again on 24 February 2024 and left a card saying the resident missed a gas appointment. It is unclear why a further visit was made after the gas safety check had been completed on 7 February 2024. The landlord has not provided a reason for this additional visit, which suggests problems in maintaining and updating its records. Additionally, it reflects a lack of effective oversight and is inconsistent with its gas safety policy. These shortcomings raise concerns about the landlord’s approach to information management and internal communication and subsequently led to the resident being confused by its visit.
47. Between 24 and 26 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord. She asked the landlord why it visited again on 24 February 2024 despite completing the gas check 17 days prior. Additionally, she told it she felt harassed by it. She told it she was ignored when she tried to book the safety checks.
48. The landlord responded on 27 February 2024. It apologised again for the problems the resident had when booking the gas safety check and acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience it may have caused. Additionally, it explained why it missed an appointment on 6 February 2024. However, the landlord did not:
    1. explain why the gas engineer did not return on 19 January 2024
    2. explain why an engineer did not attend 23 January 2024
    3. address the resident’s concerns about the information it gave to its solicitors
    4. investigate or respond to why it visited on 24 February 2024
49. The landlord missed an opportunity to respond to all points of the resident’s complaint. Its stage 2 complaint response did not offer any compensation to account for its failures that affected the resident. Our remedies guidance says awards between £50 to £100 are appropriate for service failure, while £100 to £600 is reasonable where maladministration has occurred. This is similar to the landlord’s compensation policy which says awards of between £50 to £500 should be made where there are repeated service failures. In not awarding compensation in these circumstances, it failed to reasonably redress the resident in line with its policy.
50. While the landlord did recognise some of its failings in its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered the resident some compensation for them, it did not go far enough in putting things right. There was a delay of 141 days between the resident’s request to book the safety checks and the gas safety check being completed. Further, there were a total of 5 visits to the property without it giving the resident prior notice. An additional 2 appointments were agreed with the resident, however the landlord did not attend at the correct time, or not at all. The resident provided the landlord with her availability on 3 separate occasions between September 2023 and January 2024, however it only replied on 1 occasion.
51. The landlord has not provided evidence that it fully considered the impact on the resident in its response to, or management of, the gas safety check. There was a lack of learning from earlier communication issues which often resulted in repeated and unannounced visits. Poor communication created confusion, caused delays, and added to the resident’s distress. The landlord also failed to take account of the resident’s disability despite being informed. Its communication was poor and often meant the resident spent time and trouble in chasing for updates. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the annual gas safety check. A further order for compensation has been made in addition to what has already been offered, reflecting missed appointments, distress, and inconvenience.

Determination

52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the annual gas safety check.

Orders and recommendations

Orders 

53. Within 28 days of this report the landlord is to carry out the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. pay the resident compensation of £170 in addition to what has been offered, broken down as follows:
       1. £20 for the missed appointments on 19 January and 6 February 2024 (£10 per missed appointment)
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings relating to the gas safety check
    2. apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report
    3. provide a response to the resident’s concerns of the information provided to its solicitors

Recommendation

54. The landlord should consider amending its policies to reflect timescales to respond to customer contact to ensure residents receive timely updates.