Brighter Places (202517415)

Background

1. The resident has lived in the property since 2018. The landlord is legally required to complete a gas safety inspection of each gas appliance and flue at the property on an annual basis.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Decision to disconnect the gas supply at the property.
   2. Handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to disconnect the gas supply at the property.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s decision to disconnect the gas supply at the property.

4. The landlord followed its gas safety policy in attempting to arrange its legally required gas safety check and in making its decision to disconnect the gas supply at the property.
5. The landlord had due regard to the resident’s circumstances and offered support in line with its safeguarding policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

6. The landlord’s responded to the complaint in line its policy and procedures in respect of timescales. However, it failed to answer all aspects of the complaint, and this was a service 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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that this situation affected his mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury he considers has been caused by the landlord.
8. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we did investigate

9. In line with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (gas safety regulations) landlords are required to maintain all gas appliances within its properties and arrange annual safety checks on such appliances (within 1 year of the previous inspection). The landlord has a gas safety policy in place which provides an expected process and timescales in relation to maintaining compliance and making appointments.
10. The evidence shows the previous inspection was completed on 20 June 2024 and was due to expire on 20 June 2025.
11. The landlord started its efforts to complete the annual gas safety check at the property on 7 April 2025, approximately 10 weeks before it was due to expire. It arranged an appointment for 15 April 2025 and notified the resident by email and voicemail of this.
12. This was in line with its gas safety policy which says that the first arranged appointment must be scheduled no later than 7 weeks before the expiry of the current certificate. However, it failed to give the 2 week’s notice period required for an initial appointment in line with this policy and this was a shortcoming. The evidence suggests the resident refused access to the engineer because he had not received a notification of the visit by letter.
13. The landlord’s evidence says it made a new appointment on 16 April 2025 for an appointment on 29 April 2025 and notified the resident by letter. It was positive that the landlord adapted its communication method, given the resident’s frustration at not receiving the previous notification by letter.
14. This appointment was in line with its gas safety policy which says that the second appointment must be rescheduled no later than 10 working days from the missed visit and no later than 6 weeks before the expiry. However, on attendance the engineer was unable to gain access as the resident was not at the property.
15. On 12 May 2025 the landlord left a voice mail, sent a text and emailed the resident asking him to make an appointment in the next 7 days. In doing this, the landlord demonstrated that it was trying to work with the resident to provide an appointment which was convenient to him. The email explained that it had a legal obligation to complete the gas service and that it was essential that the resident allowed access, as if not it would have to take legal action. The resident responded to this and asked for an appointment on 9 June 2025.
16. Due to its concerns that this date was close to the expiration of the compliance certificate the landlord made attempts with the resident to bring this date forward, however the resident said he was not available. The evidence shows that while the landlord agreed to this appointment it sent a legal notice on 20 May 2025 and it started the process to obtain an injunction on 29 May 2025.
17. The landlord has not provided evidence of the contents of the legal notice or what actions it had completed in starting the injunction process. The landlords gas safety policy says, “that after a minimum of three failed attempts, an injunction for forced entry is sought for breach of tenancy to allow access for maintenance”.
18. The injunction process was started after the second failed attempt. This was not in line with its policy. However, given there was a history of access issues at the property, and the scheduled appointment was not until 9 working days before the expiry of the certificate, its decision to act outside of its policy was reasonable in the circumstances.
19. On 9th June 2025 the engineer reported to the landlord that they had isolated the boiler, as parts were required for the flue, but that they had been unable to access the cooker to complete an assessment of that. He also reported that the resident may require extra support due to hoarding issues. This was a positive observation and in line with the landlord’s safeguarding policy that says its staff and visitors will recognise concerns and report them promptly.
20. In response to this concern the landlord emailed the resident and asked him to ensure that the area was cleared to allow for access and offered the resident support to complete this. The landlord’s evidence shows that it had already made a safeguarding referral to the local authority for the resident, which was still open at that time. The landlord visited the resident on 13 June 2025 to discuss this but was refused access.
21. On the same date, the evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor spoke with the resident and attempted to arrange an appointment for 19 June 2025, however the resident ended the call.
22. On 16 June 2025 the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone, sent a text, email and letter providing 20 June 2025 as the final appointment date. Given the expiry of the gas safety certificate was within a few days, it was positive that the landlord used all available methods of communication to ensure the resident was aware of the appointment. The resident responded to the landlord and told it to make the appointment.
23. This notice made it clear to the resident that if he did not allow access on 20 June 2025 and the engineer was unable to complete a full gas service, it would have no option but to cap the external meter due to health and safety concerns.
24. On the same date the landlord completed a risk assessment of what it would instruct the engineer to do if the repair, service and gas safety check was not completed on 20 June 2025. It decided that it would authorise the disconnection of the gas and recorded that “the health and safety benefits of capping the gas at the property to the tenant and other occupants of the property and/or block outweigh the risk of harm to the tenant or other occupants”.
25. This was in line with its gas safety policy, which says it “may cap the gas supply as a last resort, as an alternative to an injunction, if it has reason to believe that there is a risk of explosion if the gas supply is not cut off, particularly in a block of flats”.
26. Given the risk assessment shows that there were 13 properties in the block, and the engineer had identified that a repair was required for the boiler and it could not access the cooker to complete the safety check, it was reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to make this decision at that time.
27. In his complaint the resident said he had been expecting the engineer on 19 June 2025 rather than 20 June 2025. While we can understand why the resident had this date in mind, as it had been mentioned as a possible appointment date, we are satisfied that the landlord made it sufficiently clear that the appointment was 20 June 2025.
28. The landlord attended the property on 20 June 2025 but did not access the property as the resident was not present. Its engineer disconnected the has supply from the meter outside the property and left a notice informing the resident of its actions on the door.
29. In summary, the landlord had a legal duty to complete the annual gas safety inspection at the property, and it took reasonable and proportionate action to ensure it was able to complete this. This included disconnecting the gas supply.
30. We acknowledge that this action may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord had to balance this with the potentially more serious impact of there being an issue with the gas installation or fittings which could lead to gas leaks, fires, explosions or carbon monoxide poisoning.
31. This investigation has found no evidence that the landlord’s behaviour or conduct was inappropriate and found, on balance, that it considered the resident’s personal circumstances while handling the gas safety check.
32. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to disconnect the gas supply at the property.

33. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
34. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
35. The resident raised his initial complaint on 29 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 4 July 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 18 July 2025, in line with the Code.
36. The resident requested his complaint was escalated on 29 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 August 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 11 August 2025, in line with the Code.
37. The Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
38. In his complaint, the resident said he considered the landlord’s actions to be in breach of its duties under The Equality Act 2010 as a disabled person. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. As such, we have not investigated this allegation any further.
39. However, the landlord ought to have provided a response to this point and it was a failure that it did not. This is likely to have caused the resident further frustration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise for this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord did not provide a copy of its safeguarding referral. While it provided evidence that this was completed online, the landlord ought to have retained an independent copy of this referral for its own records. This would have helped it maintain an up-to-date assessment of its safeguarding concerns and better identify any new concerns not previously reported.
41. The landlord also failed to provide a copy of the legal notice its records said it served on the resident on 20 May 2025, meaning we were unable to assess its contents.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communication was largely positive. It used all methods available to it and adhered to the resident’s reasonable adjustment request in its communication throughout the investigation. However, it failed to answer all points in its complaint responses, which was a shortcoming.