Notting Hill Genesis (202333817)
|
Case ID |
202333817 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Notting Hill Genesis |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
20 November 2025 |
- The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out an annual gas safety check. He said the contractor was rude and threatened to disconnect the gas supply if access was not granted. He complained about the contractor’s conduct and the need for the check given a valid gas safety certificate was in place and not due to expire for several months. The resident asked us to investigate whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s concerns about the annual gas safety check.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found that:
- There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the annual gas safety check.
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Gas safety check concerns
- The landlord missed opportunities to engage meaningfully with the resident about the expiry date of the certificate, and why it needed to attend and by when.
Complaint handling
- The landlord delayed in issuing its stage 1 response which caused the resident inconvenience. The reasons for the delay are unclear, but the resident was caused inconvenience.
- There was a poor understanding of the complaint policy which caused internal confusion about the escalation stages applicable to the resident’s complaint.
- The landlord did not address the resident’s comments about his historical complaint in August 2022 or an unannounced visit, which caused him distress.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 18 December 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.
|
No later than 18 December 2025 |
|
3 |
Specific action order The landlord must write to the resident to respond to his concerns about:
Any response must provide clear explanations of its findings, and if applicable, reference its complaint policy. |
No later than 18 December 2025 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
Between 8 June 2023 and 12 July 2023 |
The landlord arranged for 3 appointments to conduct a gas safety check. It cancelled the first one due to van faults. It said the resident would not allow access for the second appointment, and that he cancelled the third appointment. |
|
27 July 2023 |
The resident notified the landlord that he would not allow access to the property until he received a copy of the gas safety certificate because he felt it was not due to expire. |
|
31 August 2023 |
The landlord tried again to attend to complete the gas safety check but said it could not gain access. It noted the resident had said the previous gas safety check was still in date. |
|
25 August 2023 |
The resident complained because a contractor arrived early for a gas safety inspection and threatened to disconnect the supply if access was refused. He said he had already complained about this in August 2022 and enclosed a copy of this complaint. He said the landlord had failed to respond. He said he had chased a response to his previous complaint in February and August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. |
|
1 September 2023 |
The resident wrote to the landlord and explained another contractor came and threatened to disconnect the gas meter if he did not allow access. He also reported that the engineer was rude and offensive during the visit. The also resident asked:
|
|
12 September 2023 |
The resident chased the stage 1 response. The landlord said it had given him a ‘quick fix’ resolution letter on 8 August 2023 and had closed his complaint. It said it would escalate the complaint if he let it know he was still dissatisfied. The resident explained he wanted a stage 2 response. |
|
3 October 2023 |
The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It:
|
|
5 October 2023 |
The resident escalated his complaint because he was concerned about the impact of “the actions taken against” him and other residents. He said it was a violation of the law. He also wanted a copy of staff procedures. |
|
26 October 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated the points it made during stage 1 and said the £50 already offered remained appropriate and was in line with its compensation policy. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought his complaint to us because he believed the landlord had a pattern of poor working practices that remained unresolved. He was concerned these issues could continue to affect him and other residents during future annual gas safety checks. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The resident’s concerns about the annual gas safety check |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The resident said he complained in August 2022, but the landlord did not respond, so the complaint process was not completed. Because this complaint was not referred to us at the time, or within 12 months, we cannot investigate it. We have only considered events from June 2023 onward, which were associated to the complaint made in August 2023.
- The landlord must carry out annual gas safety checks on all gas appliances to ensure they are safe. Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, these checks can be completed up to 2 months early without changing the original expiry date. The landlord carries out gas safety checks early to ensure compliance with this obligation.
- The landlord’s records show it tried to attend on 23 June 2023 to conduct a gas safety assessment but could not gain access. There was no reason noted for the lack of access. The resident cancelled a second appointment for 29 June 2023, but again no reason was included for why. The records ought to have contained this information and that it did not reflects poor record-keeping.
- The landlord is legally responsible for ensuring the gas safety checks are completed so appliances are safe for the resident. There is nothing that precludes the landlord from carrying out compliance checks early. However, the landlord should reasonably have been aware the gas safety check was not due to expire until 23 September 2023. And if the landlord intended to carry out compliance checks early, it ought to have communicated this to the resident and explained why it was doing so. We understand the landlord acknowledged its records were inaccurate at the time, because it had recorded the certificate was due to expire on 11 August 2023. Therefore, the landlord’s record keeping led to earlier scheduling of appointments without proper communication. This caused the resident confusion and distress.
- The landlord also accepted that the gas safety record expiry date was incorrect. In its complaint responses, it acknowledged the error, apologised, and updated its own and its contractor’s databases. It also offered £50 for the inconvenience. We consider this was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
- The landlord said a further appointment took place on 31 August 2023, which was within the 2 months the resident’s certificate was due to expire. We understand the resident did not allow access because he said his certificate was still in date. And that he had told the landlord on 27 July 2023, that he would not allow access until he received a copy of the current certificate.
- The landlord acted reasonably in trying to carry out the gas safety check, as it was legally responsible for doing so. However, it missed another chance to engage with the resident to confirm the certificate expiry date and clarify when and why access was needed. Better communication could have managed the resident’s expectations and avoided unnecessary confusion and distress. There is no evidence the landlord recognised this and tried to put it right.
- The resident also reported that the contractor was rude and was harassing. He was also unhappy that he threatened to disconnect the gas meter if access was refused. This caused him worry and frustration. The landlord’s records did not confirm whether prior notice was given or what advice was provided at the appointment, which was another record keeping failure. We understand that the gas was not disconnected, therefore the impact was the distress caused by the contractor’s conduct and advice.
- The landlord reasonably addressed the operative’s behaviour and advice about disconnecting the gas by raising the issue with the contractor. In turn, the contractor confirmed to the landlord that its staff were reminded of professional standards. The landlord reasonably explained this to the resident in its complaint responses.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The Complaint Handling Code (‘the former Code’) published in 2022 applied when the resident made his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy definition was in line with the former Code.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response 16 working days after receiving the complaint. This should have been issued within 10 working days. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
- The landlord said the delay was because it issued the resident with a ‘quick fix’ response in line with its complaint policy. And that because the resident did not communicate, he was dissatisfied with the response, it did not know to escalate it further until he recontacted it. The landlord did not provide evidence of its ‘quick fix’ response, or that it confirmed with the resident he was satisfied with the response. We would expect the landlord to have shared this with us. In the absence of this evidence, we could not conclude the resident considered his complaint was resolved at the time and in turn the delay was reasonable in the circumstances.
- We also understand that the landlord was confused when the resident made his complaint and was not immediately aware it had issued a ‘quick fix’ resolution. The internal communication shows unawareness of what a ‘quick fix’ resolution was. This contributed to some confusion about whether the complaint needed to be escalated to stage 1 or stage 2 of the complaint procedure. This also contributed to the delay experienced by the resident. We consider this was attributable to poor understanding of its complaint policy at the time, as well as record keeping. Given the landlord’s complaint policy has been updated to reflect the new Code and no longer has a 3-stage process, we will not make further orders in relation to this.
- The resident said in his complaint that the landlord did not respond to his previous complaint in August 2022. He shared a copy of this with the landlord, when he made the complaint in August 2023. The landlord did not respond to this element. This was a failure to answer all of the complaint. It should have investigated the matter or explained, with reference to its complaint policy, why it would not. This caused the resident distress because he saw the original complaint as the starting point of his concerns.
- Further, the resident also complained a contractor had attended without notice. But the landlord did not address the resident’s concern about the appointment being unannounced. The landlord ought to have reasonably set out its position in relation to this matter. That it did not was a further failure to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint. This meant it missed an opportunity to set out its position on the matter.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response 15 working days after the escalation request. This was within the 20 working day timeframe set out in the former Code.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping did not record reasons for missed and cancelled appointments, leaving gaps in its records. It also did not provide us with a copy of its quick fix response and associated communication from the resident.
Communication
- The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about what it needed to do and why prior to the complaint. This meant it did not manage his expectations properly.