We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Basildon Borough Council (202323861)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323861

Basildon Borough Council

29 April 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 repairs to the resident’s gas fire.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy of the property, which began in July 2022. She lives at the property with her adult daughter. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. On 11 May 2023 the landlord carried out a gas safety check. The gas safety record says the gas fire appliance in the living room, which belonged to the resident, was not safe to use. The engineer’s report says the appliance had not been serviced regularly, they had issued a warning notice, and advised the resident to get it serviced.
  3. On 30 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that a pigeon had fallen down the chimney into the fireplace, behind the gas fire. The landlord’s pest control operative attended the same day and removed the pigeon. In order to do so, they detached the frame around the gas fire, to removed it from the fireplace. On the same day the landlord raised a job on its repairs system to “have fireplace backing put back on.”
  4. The landlord’s carpenter attended on 21 July 2023. Their notes said they had attended to “make good” the fireplace, but found there was “nothing to do,” and the fireplace was “all OK.” The resident said in her subsequent correspondence that, although she was not in when the carpenter attended, her daughter who was there said the engineer only completed a visual inspection, and so did not notice the gas fire was not attached to the fireplace.
  5. The landlord’s carpenter attended on 11 August 2023 to make good the fireplace. The landlord’s repairs history does not record what was done, but states the job was completed. The resident said in her subsequent correspondence that the engineer put glue around the fire, but this did not work. Following this, the landlord told the resident it was not responsible for any further repairs to the gas fire, as the appliance belonged to her.
  6. On 14 August 2023 the landlord’s engineer attended to check the gas fire was safe. The engineer noted they did a tightness test, which “passed,” but they had left the gas fire isolated, and had left a warning notice, as the fire was “in bad condition from being removed, and has not been tested or certified as is tenant’s own appliance.” A photograph taken by the engineer shows that the gas fire was partially dismantled and the frame was not fixed to the fireplace.
  7. On 3 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
    1. The operative who removed the pigeon told her a gas engineer would need to come and fix the fire back, and make it safe.
    2. An engineer came, put glue around the fire, but this did not work.
    3. The landlord then told her the fire was her responsibility to fix.
    4. The landlord should fix the fire as it was working “perfectly” before the landlord removed the pigeon.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 response (undated) said the resident was responsible for rectifying the gas fire as it belonged to her, and had not been damaged by it, or its contractor. It advised the resident to make a claim to her contents insurer.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 29 September 2023, repeated that the resident was responsible for rectifying the gas fire. It said the gas fire had been found to be unsafe during the gas safety check in May 2023, and the resident had been issued a warning notice and advised to get it serviced.
  10. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response and contacted this Service on 25 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenant’s handbook issued to the resident with her tenancy agreement says tenants are responsible for keeping gas appliances belonging to them in good working order, by having them regularly serviced by a Gas Safe registered engineer. The handbook also says the landlord prioritises repairs as follows:
    1. Priority 1 (emergency) – attend within 2 hours to make safe.
    2. Priority 1 (emergency gas repairs) – attend within 24 hours.
    3. Priority 2 (all other responsive repairs) – to be completed within 28 days.
  2. The gas fire was found to be not safe to use during the gas safety check on 11 May 2023. The resident was issued a warning notice and advised to get it serviced. As it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the resident did get the gas fire serviced following this, it is unknown whether the gas fire was in safe working order on 30 June 2023, when the landlord detached the frame and removed the appliance from the fireplace.
  3. The landlord acted promptly to remove the pigeon, by attending on the same day as the resident’s report. It also attended to reinstate the gas fire into fireplace within 21 days of the repair being logged, which was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy timescales.
  4. However, the landlord did not complete the repair as promised. It is unclear from the evidence what condition the gas fire was in prior to the landlord removing the pigeon, whether the landlord damaged the appliance when removing the pigeon, and if so, whether this had any impact whether or not it was in safe working order. Despite this, and despite the fact that it may not have been obliged to repair the gas fire, the landlord clearly created an expectation that it would reinstate the fire into the fireplace, and it was therefore obliged to do so. On 30 June 2023 it raised a works order to reinstate the fire in the fireplace. It then attended twice on 21 July 2023 and 11 August 2023 to carry this out. However, the report and photograph of the engineer who attended on 14 August 2023 show the fire had not been reinstated.
  5. It was appropriate that the landlord attended on 14 August 2023 to ensure that the gas fire in its current state did not pose a health and safety risk. However, it was unreasonable that, having created an expectation that it would reinstate the fire in the fireplace, it did not do this, and changed its apparent position to say it would do no further works. This caused the resident frustration and disappointment. Had the landlord communicated clearly to the resident from the outset what it would and would not do, this could have been avoided.
  6. The landlord’s failings can be summarised as a failure to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations, and poor communication. The Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £100. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published Remedies Guidance for service failure. In making this determination and calculating the compensation we have noted that there is no indication that the resident was without heating during the time she was unable to use the gas fire. Furthermore, it is unclear what amount of time the resident was unable to use the gas fire, and whether / what proportion of this was due to the landlord’s actions.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of its complaints policy and procedure. In the absence of this, the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time will be used as a guide to what would have been reasonable.
  2. The Code required landlords to log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt and responded to in full at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally landlords could explain why further time would be needed, and provide a clear timeframe for a response, not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason. Extensions beyond 20 working days would have had to be agreed by both parties.
  3. The Code required landlords to keep a full record of the complaint, including the original complaint and all correspondence with the resident.
  4. The Code required landlords to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. landlords could explain why further time would be needed, and provide a clear timeframe for a response, not exceeding a further 10 working days without good reason. Extensions beyond 10 working days would have had to be agreed by both parties.
  5. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint or her request to escalate to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. In the absence of such evidence, it is only possible to conclude that the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or request to escalate, and this was unreasonable and not in line with the Code.
  6. The copies of the stage 1 and 2 responses provided by the landlord are undated. The landlord has provided a copy of an email to the resident dated 29 September 2023 with the stage 2 response attached, but no such email has been provided for the stage 1 response. Therefore, while it is evident the stage 2 response was provided 19 working days after resident’s initial complaint, within the timescale required by the Code, it is not possible to evidence that the stage 1 response was provided within the required timeframe.
  7. While the landlord provided a reasonable account of the relevant events in both the stage 1 and 2 responses, it failed to acknowledge that it had, by its actions, created an expectation that it would reinstate the gas fire, and had not followed through on this. It therefore missed an opportunity to use its investigation into the resident’s complaint to make redress for its shortcomings and identify learning points for its practice going forward.
  8. The landlord’s shortcomings in complaint handling can be summarised as a lack of acknowledgement of the complaint or request to escalate, lack of evidence that the stage 1 response was provided on time, and missed opportunity to acknowledge its failings, provide local resolution, redress and learn from the complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered to landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s gas fire.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £150, broken down as follows:
      1. £100 for its handling of repairs to the gas fire.
      2. £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the complaint handlers involved in this case should undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning ( https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/)
  3. The landlord must carry out a case review to identify the causes of the failures in this case, and identify learning and service improvement points. The review should incorporate its own held records as well as taking into account this report. Specific attention should be given to how its communications and resident expectations might be better managed so as to avoid any misunderstandings. The landlord must share a written report of the review with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. 

 

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should engage with the resident to endeavour to reach an agreed solution in respect of the alleged damage to the gas appliance. If this is not possible the landlord should signpost the resident to make a claim to its own insurers.