Basildon Borough Council (202115819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115819

Basildon Borough Council

29 June 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the gas pipes to be relocated.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which commenced on 19 March 2021. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a two-bedroom house.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to carry out repairs for the systems for supplying water, electricity and gas.
The landlord’s tenants handbook available online advises that the gas mains infrastructure is maintained by the National Grid. Whilst the National Grid will attend to resolve an emergency, the landlord’s contractor should be contacted to carry out any repair required if any. It will undertake an annual gas central heating safety check to ensure that the resident is protected from gas leaks and carbon monoxide poisoning.
The landlord’s void standard dated June 2020 advised that while the property is empty, it will disable the boiler and recommission it once a tenant for the property is identified.
The landlord’s comments, compliments and complaints procedure advises that it will register a stage zero complaint before a formal complaint is considered. The landlord operates a three-stage complaint procedure. At all stages complaints will be answered within 10 working days. The exception will be the final stage where it will provide its response within 20 working days if it has determined that the complaint does not meet the criteria for escalation.
The landlord’s housing compensation policy and procedure gives guidance on compensation awards. The awards are assessed from no impact to major impact.
The guidance from the national gas emergency service available online explains that it is responsible for the management of the gas pipes. The utility suppliers are responsible for the meters and the pipe work leading from it and the landlord is responsible for the gas pipework inside the home from the meter.

Summary of events

The landlord records show that the property was purchased by the landlord and required refurbishment in 2019. In February 2020, the porch to the property was taken down and the gas pipework on either side of the porch was capped. The gas pipe work was rerun with 28mm pipes.
On 2 March 2020, the resident viewed and was given the keys to the property.
The landlord’s records noted on 3 March 2020 that the gas meter needed to be moved as it was situated in the middle of the front garden. The following day, it recorded that a new gas supply from the meter to the property was required. The test results were to be recorded on the landlord’s gas safety certificate.
Between March 2020 and October 2020, the resident reported various repairs such as electrical works, problems with the chimney and a rat infestation in the loft.
On 7 October 2020, the landlord’s records noted that the gas pipe in the living room was sticking out above the fire place and needed to cut and capped. In addition, that the resident wanted the gas meter moved onto the wall by the window and the gas pipework rerouted or the gas pipework to be dug into the ground.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 October 2020 about the quality of the work carried out by the landlord’s contractor who had carried out the repairs to the property. Among other things he complained that there was an exposed gas meter pipe between his and his neighbour’s property. He advised that the gas company had said that the pipe should be moved, the move of the meter was chargeable and that the gas pipe was the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and advised it would respond by 13 November 2020.
On 13 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise that it would not be able to respond that day. It advised that it would respond by 27 November 2020.
On the same day, (13 November 2020), the landlord’s records show that it carried out a gas safety check at the resident’s property and that there was no earth bonding at the gas meter.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 17 December 2020 and apologised for its delay. With regard to the resident’s concerns about the gas meter and pipes, it advised that the exposed gas pipe between the resident and his neighbour’s property was the responsibility of the utility provider. It advised that the utility provider was responsible for the management of the gas pipes up to and including the gas meter.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 25 February 2021. This included the external work to the rear of the property such as damaged brickwork, gaps in the roof and to repoint joints to the lean to and porch.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 March 2021 to express that he remained dissatisfied with its response. He explained that he considered that the property was dangerous and the landlord had done nothing to resolve his concerns. The resident provided pictures of the property showing that the gas pipes exited from above the front door and ran down the external façade of the property. The gas pipes exited into a box in the garden.
In response, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the complaint had been escalated to the second stage of its complaint procedure.
On 12 April 2021, the landlord’s records show that on the same day it considered speaking to the gas utility company about the possibility of moving the gas meter, so it could be wall mounted. It noted the resident remained unhappy about the routing of the pipework.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at the second stage of its complaint procedure on 12 April 2021. The landlord advised that:
1. Its surveyor had inspected the property on 25 February 2021.
2. It would check the gas internal pipework to the living room before deciding whether it could be capped off below floor level.
3. The incoming gas main was the responsibility of the utility company. It would not be able to assist with the removal of the meter.
The landlord provided a further stage two complaint response on 23 April 2021. It advised that an appointment had been arranged for 14 June 2021 to cut back the redundant gas pipe in the living room to below floor level. It also confirmed that any work required to the exposed gas pipe between the resident and neighbour was the responsibility of the gas utility provider to resolve.
The resident provided a copy of the call out information from the national gas emergency service, who attended the residents property on 27 May 2021. The callout was in response to a report of a smell of gas within the property.
The landlord registered a stage zero complaint on 29 June 2021 following the resident’s request for compensation for the stress that he had experienced. The landlord responded on the 13 July 2021 that it had not identified any service failures in the management of his repair requests. It could not award compensation and informed the resident if he remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint within 10 working days.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 13 July 2021. He expressed that he had been making complaints for the past 18 months about unresolved repairs in the property that made the property dangerous. Furthermore, the landlord had not acted to get the repairs resolved.
The landlord responded at stage one of the complaint procedure on 23 July 2021 regarding the resident’s request for compensation. The landlord:
1. Apologised that its complaint response on 17 December 2020 did not address the issue of compensation for the condition of the property.
2. Confirmed that it had received the resident’s stage two complaint on 25 March 2021 and had responded on 12 April 2021. However, the resident had not escalated that complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure.
3. It had responded to the councillor enquiry it had received on 27 June 2021 regarding the resident’s request for compensation. It had dealt with this as a complaint and responded on 13 July 2021. It apologised that it had not carried out the repairs to the resident’s property before the tenancy commenced and made a compensation award of £200.
The landlord provided its second stage complaint response on 11 August 2021 regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction with the compensation award. The landlord reaffirmed the information provided in its previous response on 23 July 2021 and reoffered the compensation award of £200.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 29 October 2021. He expressed that among other things he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the relocation of the external gas pipes around his front door. He advised that his neighbours were concerned about the location of the gas pipes as he considered that they were dangerous. He advised that he wanted them moved to a safer position. The following day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
The resident provided a letter from the national grid gas emergency service on 29 November 2021. It advised that it had attended a call out at the resident’s property on 27 May 2021 following a report of a gas escape. It advised that it had not found a gas escape and that the resident wanted the gas outlet pipework moved. Furthermore, any equipment installed after the control value is the responsibility of the owner of the property.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 29 October 2021. It advised that it would not be considering the complaint at its final stage as the resident had taken two months to escalate the complaint. It maintained its position that the external pipework is the responsibility of the utility supplier and it could not assist with the resident’s request for the gas pipe to be removed.
The final complaint response included its response to the resident’s councillor. It advised that it had capped the redundant pipework in the living room and that the responsibility for the gas meter outside the property lay with the national gas emergency service. Its contractor would attend the property to assess if there was further repairs required.
After the complaint process was exhausted, the landlord reiterated to the resident on 4 November 2021 that for the pipework to be moved to a lower level, the meter would need to be moved at the resident’s own cost.
The resident remained dissatisfied as he wanted the landlord to agree to relocate the gas pipe and escalated his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
There are three organisations that have responsibility to ensure that the gas pipe work in the resident’s property is safe. The national gas emergency service, the utility company and the landlord. The landlord’s specific responsibility is to repair and to maintain the gas pipework that runs from the meter to any internal appliance. This is outlined in the tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property, which extends to the gas pipes.
Whilst the property was empty, when removing the porch, the landlord replaced the gas pipes to the property. The landlord’s submission to this Service, does not state whether the utility company was involved in the replacement of the gas pipes. From what can be seen from the photos submitted by the resident that the gas meter has not been moved and the gas pipes in the garden are exposed. The resident has understandably outlined his concerns about this. The landlord’s records submitted to this Service do not provide information regarding the decision not to bury the gas pipes running from the façade of the building to the meter box underground rather than leaving them exposed above ground.
The resident has requested that the landlord relocate the gas pipes as he believes that the current location is unsafe. Each year, the landlord is required to undertake an annual gas inspection and issue its certificate. This should include a visual inspection of the pipework. While the annual gas inspection certificates have not been provided for the purpose of this investigation, the resident has not advised that the annual gas inspection of his property identified areas of fault or failure with the gas pipework.
The resident provided evidence that the national gas emergency service had attended his property in May 2021 in response to a call out for an escape of gas. There is no evidence that when they attended his address, they had concerns regarding the location of the external gas pipes. The resident provided a letter from the national gas emergency service in November 2021 confirming it had attended his property. It signposted the resident to his landlord if he wanted the gas pipes moved. It is noted that the correspondence from the national gas emergency service did not raise concerns about the location of the gas pipes, rather it signposted the resident to the landlord if he wanted the meter moved. The national gas emergency service has a responsibility to issue a safety notice to inform the building owner of any defects or non-compliance that it identifies.
The resident expressed concerned about the safety of the gas pipe visible between his and his neighbour’s property. Whilst the landlord has reiterated that it was not responsible for the gas pipes that the resident is concerned about, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to offer reassurance to the resident about the safety of the gas pipes. Furthermore, the resident had received contradictory advice about who was responsible for the gas pipes he had concerns about: the communication he had received had referred to both the national gas emergency service and the utility company as the responsible party.
The landlord’s complaint responses have maintained its position that the relocation of the gas pipe was not its responsibility. It signposted the resident to his utility supplier to arrange for the gas meter to be moved and for the pipes to be relocated. While the advice was correct, the landlord’s responses to the resident could have provided a greater amount of detail and clarity to counteract the contradictory advice he had received.
From what can be seen the landlord missed an opportunity to provide the resident with an alternative to the relocation of the gas pipes in the garden. From the pictures, the pipework is visible in the garden, the landlord has not explained whether or not it is possible for the gas pipe work to be shielded or boxed in in some way to protect the gas pipes.
The landlord’s complaint response states that it will consider at its final complaint stage complaints that are escalated within 10 working days. In this particular case, on 12 April 2021, the landlord provided its second stage complaint response regarding the resident’s request to relocate the gas pipes. The landlord provided a supplementary response on 23 April 2021 setting out its position that the gas pipe was the responsibility of the resident’s utility company. The resident did not escalate his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure until October 2021. There was at least six-month period between the landlord issuing its second stage complaint response regarding the relocation of the gas pipes and at least two months from the landlord giving its response to the resident’s resident for compensation before the resident escalated his complaint to the final stage. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that the threshold for a final stage complaint investigation had not been met.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the gas pipes to be relocated.

Reasons

The landlord has informed the resident that the resident’s utility company is responsible for the gas pipe, therefore the supply pipe cannot be moved without the consent of the utility company. Furthermore, before the supply pipe can be moved, the meter would need to be relocated, which again is the responsibility of the utility company.

Recommendation

The landlord to discuss with the resident any action that it can take to cover the visible gas pipes in the garden without removing the meter or reducing the accessibility to the gas pipes.