Citizen Housing (202112942)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112942

Citizen Housing

26 September 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s finding that the back boiler and gas fire were unsafe following the annual gas safety check.
    2. The landlord’s request to replace the boiler and heating system in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 19 August 2021, a gas engineer attended the property to carry out the annual gas safety check. During the appointment, the gas engineer found the gas fire in the property to be dangerous and informed the resident the supply needed to be capped for safety. The resident refused the supply being capped and was provided with a warning. On 20 August 2021, a gas engineer attended the property to cap the supply, and the resident refused access as she was dissatisfied with the decision for the appliances to be deemed dangerous. The gas engineer arranged for the police to attend the property and once access was gained, the supply was capped due to the appliance being deemed ‘immediately dangerous’. The resident was provided with heaters and temporary cooking appliances.
  3. On 23 August 2021, a gas engineer attended the property and was unable to fix the fire due to the parts needed no longer being manufactured. The engineer reinstated the supply to the cooker. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 August to advise they were unable to repair or replace the gas fire due to the parts no longer being manufactured. The landlord offered to upgrade the resident’s heating system and provide three further radiators to the property. Between 31 August and 01 September, the landlord attempted to gain access to the property to install the new boiler but the resident refused access due to lack of guarantee that the flue liner would be removed on the same day. On 07 September, the resident stated work could not commence due to the potential of the flue liner not being removed on the same day as the gas fire.
  4. Between 14 September and 23 November, the landlord tried to access the property on five occasions until the resident informed the landlord on 23 November that she would be suspending works and to cancel the appointments. The landlord arranged an appointment on 16 December 2021 that had to be rearranged due to the engineer injuring himself. The landlord tried to gain access on 20 December but access was refused and the resident informed the landlord that she would be unavailable until further notice. From December 2021 onwards the landlord has urged the resident to make an appointment so that it could upgrade the heating system.
  5. In the resident’s complaint, she raised concerns about the gas engineer purposefully sabotaging the gas fire. She was dissatisfied with how she had been treated and embarrassed that the police attended the property. The resident raised concerns about having no heating or hot water during the period where the gas supply had been capped.
  6. In response to the complaint, the landlord advised that it had a duty of care to the resident, and the police attending was necessary as access had been refused. The landlord advised the resident its main priority was to ensure that she had a functional heating system and noted that it had previously offered to upgrade her heating system in 2018 and in 2019 due to the likelihood that a fault would occur. It stated it could not replace the gas fire with a like–for–like replacement due to it no longer being manufactured and apologised for the appointment that was not attended due to the engineer’s injury. It stated it carried out an investigation in to the residents claims that the engineer sabotaged the fire and concluded that the damaged pipe was found to be due to wear and tear due to the age of the appliances. Furthermore it noted the failed gas safety test was not only due to the damaged pipe.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 the landlord has a legal obligation to ensure that the gas supply and appliances in a property are in a safe condition, maintained by a gas safe engineer, and that a gas safety check is completed every 12 months.
  2.  Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, if a fault is detected in a gas appliance that is deemed immediately dangerous to a tenant, the appropriate action would be to disconnect and cap the appliance, to prevent its reconnection.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that residents should provide reasonable access to the landlord in order to carry out remedial works.

The landlord’s finding that the back boiler and gas fire were unsafe following the annual gas safety check

  1. As stated in the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, landlords are required to carry out an annual gas safety check. This was completed on 19 August 2021 and during the checks the gas engineer found faults with the gas fire installed at the property. It reported issues with the injector, as well as a damaged pipe. The landlord has a legal obligation to ensure the check is completed annually and therefore it acted reasonably by ensuring the appointment took place within an appropriate timeframe.
  2. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to cap the supply for safety reasons was reasonable as under The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, it states supply should be capped if appliances are deemed to be dangerous.
  3. Due to the resident refusing to let the engineer cap the supply, the police attended in order to enable access to the property so that the supply could be capped. The landlord followed its processes and acted reasonably by requesting police attendance given the safety risks of the gas appliance that had been deemed an ‘immediate danger,’ and given the previous refused attempts to arrange the work without police attendance.
  4. Following the resident’s allegations that the contractor had deliberately damaged the gas pipe to the fire, the landlord acted appropriately and hired a contractor to assess the damage and determine the cause of it, which was evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. The contractor determined the damage was due to wear and tear from being movement, especially considering the age of the gas fire. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its qualified staff.
  5. The landlord also informed the resident that the damaged pipe was not the only fault identified by the gas engineer during the annual gas safety check, and therefore the appliance would have to be replaced regardless. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the findings of the annual gas safety check, and to replace unsafe appliances due to its duty of care to the resident, and its legal obligations under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
  6. It would have been helpful for the landlord to address this aspect in its original stage two response following the resident’s allegations, rather than just carrying out the investigation of the damage. The landlord did provide a follow-up stage two response when requested by this Service, and explained findings to the resident however.

The landlord’s request to replace the boiler and heating system in the property

  1. The landlord contacted the resident in 2018 and 2019 to offer to upgrade the heating system in the property due to the age of the system and the likelihood that there would be a fault, however, the resident declined the offers. It was proactive for the landlord to offer this upgrade each year in an attempt to avoid a situation like this occurring.
  2.  Following the issue arising, the landlord has a duty of care to the resident, and informed the resident in its stage one response that its main priority was to ensure the resident had a functional heating system. Throughout the period where the supply was capped, the landlord provided electric heaters and temporary cooking appliances. This was appropriate and followed the landlord’s repairs policy.
  3. The landlord tried to make a number of appointments with the resident in order to replace the boiler and heating system in the property but access was denied by the resident. It states in the tenancy agreement that residents should provide reasonable access to the landlord and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to continue attempting to gain access in order to carry out the remedial works needed.
  4. The resident declined access to the property due to concerns about the flue of the fire being removed and originally, dissatisfaction at the appliance being deemed dangerous. The landlord responded reasonably to the residents’ concerns and explained the health and safety risks related to the fire, and tried to accommodate the residents wishes of the flue being removed the same day. It stated that whilst contractors would attempt to complete the work in a single day, it may take longer due to the requirements of removing a flue liner.
  5.  The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that, due to the greater risks associated with fluing of a gas fire, it has decided not to replace gas fires. The landlord tried to offer alternative heating systems throughout the process, such as an electric fire or a combi-boiler, but the resident declined. This is evidence that the landlord to tried to accommodate the resident’s wishes, whilst complying with its policies and duty of care to the resident.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s finding that the back boiler and gas fire were unsafe following the annual gas safety check.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s request to replace the boiler and heating system in the property.