Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202407259)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat, located on the first floor of a block of 4 flats. The resident privately rents the property to a family with a young child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request to install gas central heating (GCH).
   2. Complaint Handling

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install gas central heating (GCH).
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord took a reasonable approach to the resident’s request. It had no obligation to provide consent and suggested alternative methods of heating the property. Further, it provided explanations for its decision within the stage 1 and 2 complaint response and sought legal advice on its position.
   2. However, we found service failure because the landlord:
      1. Failed to follow a clear process in dealing with the resident’s initial request.
      2. Caused a short avoidable delay in its handling of the request.
      3. Raised the resident’s expectations by providing consent, which it later revoked.
      4. Did not acknowledge a complaint handling failure.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. We are unable to make a binding determination on whether the landlord should install gas central heating. Such a determination is more appropriate for the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or a court. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice if this element of the complaint remains a concern. We consider whether the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were reasonable and in accordance with its policies and processes.
7. On 1 February 2024, the resident forwarded consent forms from the gas supplier to the landlord. They required completing because the gas pipes would run under land owned by the landlord. It is evident the landlord did not have a clear process or policy for such requests because there was a lack of clarity as to which department would consider the request. Further, the landlord copied the resident into emails, which was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration, time, and trouble seeking a response.
8. On 28 February 2024, the landlord provided consent; however, on 1 March 2024, it contacted the resident and requested that the consent was placed on hold. The landlord’s decision to withdraw consent demonstrated a gap in its processes. It also raised the resident’s expectations that the installation could proceed, and subsequently caused frustration by removing that consent.
9. On 7 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would not consent for a gas supply into the building. It understood the issue of fuel poverty but felt that it would be difficult to manage the risks associated with gas in a leasehold property within a block of flats. While the response was frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the information provided by its building safety and legal team, as they were the experts on the matter.
10. The resident said that the property had panel heaters and other than GCH, there was no other alternative to prevent fuel poverty. The landlord suggested that the resident install storage heaters, which would prove to be more cost effective, eco-friendly and produce less carbon emissions than gas boilers. It was right of the landlord to suggest an alternative form of heating to support the resident in obtaining a resolution. Further, this solution was confirmed by the recommendations outlined within the current EPC for the property.
11. The landlord told us that the lease agreement clearly states that any alterations to the property must have the landlord’s approval. The lease states that the resident shall not without consent fix or place any article to the interior or exterior of the premises and shall not, without consent alter any electric wiring, gas or other central heating (if supplied) serving or forming part of the premises. The landlord was right to seek confirmation from its legal team and was entitled to rely on the information contained within the lease for the refusal. However, this information should have been sought prior to providing consent and also been communicated to the resident within its complaint responses.
12. The landlord said that is has government targets for carbon neutrality and is working towards net zero and climate ready by 2038 and is strategically eliminating gas installations in new schemes or refurbishments. It said, “to provide consent for a gas supply would directly contradict its aspirations.” While we appreciate the landlord’s desire to be environmentally sound, this should not be to the detriment of a resident in terms of adequate provision of heating. However, the landlord has recommended a viable alternative e.g. storage heaters, which is further supported by the current EPC.
13. It is understandable that the resident felt a degree of frustration regarding the landlord’s decision and refusal to allow GCH. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it was entitled to refuse the resident’s request as per the lease agreement. We note that the resident disagrees, but the landlord provided a clear explanation and sought advice on its legal position. Further, it suggested other heating options to resolve the resident’s concerns. In this case, we would have found no maladministration but for the landlord’s error in the completion of the consent forms, which gave rise to a reasonable expectation that permission would be granted.

14. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
15. On 16 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and on 25 April 2025 it provided its stage 1 complaint response, this was 14 days late. Both the landlord’s acknowledgement and response were late and therefore not in line with its policy.
16. The resident asked the landlord to escalate to a stage 2 complaint on 10 May 2024, the landlord provided its complaint acknowledgement on the same day and provided its stage 2 response on 14 May 2024. This was within the 5-working day and 20-working day timeframe respectively.
17. The slight delay to the stage 1 complaint process, was unlikely to have any significant impact on, or detriment to, the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay, therefore we have made a finding of service failure.

Learning

18. When considering a refusal for a request the landlord should refer to its policies, processes, or lease agreements in support of its refusal prior to raising expectations.

 Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord did not correctly monitor its complaints process which indicates a record keeping failing. It did not provide its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement or response according to its policy timescales. Further, it did not seem to be aware of the failing.