GreenSquareAccord Limited (202229616)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229616

GreenSquareAccord Limited

15 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a suspected carbon monoxide leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord at the property since 2018. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property. The resident lives with her 3 young children, one of whom has autism and asthma.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 and reported that her carbon monoxide alarm had been sounding. The landlord and resident both reported this to Wales and West Utilities, the local gas network. Wales and West Utilities attended the property that day and isolated the gas, telling the resident she must leave the property for 24 hours. The resident spoke with the landlord after this and agreed to call it when she had re-entered the property, so it could send an engineer.
  3. The resident called the landlord on 4 January 2023, and it raised an emergency job for a gas engineer to attend the property. The engineer attended on 4 January 2023 and found small traces of carbon monoxide once they removed the casing from the boiler. The engineer ordered parts to replace the burner gasket and noted that the resident had no access to heating or hot water while the repair was ongoing.
  4. A second engineer attended on 7 January 2023 and replaced the burner gasket, but the traces of carbon monoxide remained. The engineer concluded that the issue was with the flue box, which they suspected was leaking. The engineer’s notes do not confirm what action they took following this diagnosis.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 9 January 2023 requesting an update. The resident said she had 3 young children and was unable to live in her house. She said the landlord had not checked if she had any access to heating or hot water, and she was very unhappy. The resident asked the landlord to update her as soon as possible.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2023 and confirmed it had ordered the required parts, which were on a 48-hour courier delivery. The landlord confirmed it would attend on the afternoon of 12 January 2023 if the parts had arrived or contact her and reschedule the appointment if not.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 January 2023 and said there had been a delay to receiving the parts. The landlord said it would need to reschedule the appointment to 20 January 2023. The landlord offered to decant the resident, but she declined this because the landlord could not tell her in what location it would provide temporary accommodation. The resident said she was staying at her mother’s house with her children while the issue was ongoing. The resident asked the landlord about compensation, but it told her to wait until the issue was resolved before seeking this.
  8. The resident raised a complaint by email on 12 January 2023, in which she:
    1. Referred to an incident approximately 12 months prior, when she was heavily pregnant with two young children and had no heating or hot water for 3 weeks.
    2. Said she had now been left without hot water or adequate heating again, having only blow heaters which were too expensive to operate.
    3. Stated she had been exposed to carbon monoxide for an unknown period of time.
    4. Said she had a 10-month-old baby and two other young children, one of whom was asthmatic, so being left in those conditions was unacceptable.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 January 2023, and told the resident it would respond no later than 27 January 2023.
  10. A third gas engineer attended the property on 20 January 2023, replaced the recuperator on the boiler and completed tests. The engineer found they were still receiving a small reading of carbon monoxide above the burner, but they spoke to technical support and received an assurance that this was normal because of the porous burner seals belonging to the resident’s type of boiler. The engineer noted that the reading of carbon monoxide was below tolerance levels. The resident moved back in on this date.
  11. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 February 2023 and apologised for not contacting her sooner regarding the complaint, stating it would aim to respond by 17 February 2023. The resident also sent the landlord an email on 10 February 2023, attaching a discharge letter she had received from the hospital. This was following a recent visit she had made with her daughter concerning an asthma attack and suspected carbon monoxide exposure.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 17 February 2023 and said it would need to delay its complaint response again until 24 February 2023.
  13. The landlord subsequently sent its stage one complaint response on 24 February 2023, in which it said:
    1. The engineer who conducted the initial test should have recognised it was normal to receive a low reading for carbon monoxide within the casing of the resident’s boiler type, due to the porous burner seals.
    2. It had arranged for all engineers to receive additional training about this.
    3. The resident’s carbon monoxide alarm may have sounded coincidentally for a number of reasons, including low batteries or a faulty unit.
    4. It was upholding the resident’s complaint and proposing a payment of £350. This comprised £282 to cover the rent between 3 January 2023 and 20 January 2023 inclusive, and £68 by way of apology for the worry and inconvenience she had faced in leaving her home.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2023 and 28 February, stating on both occasions the reasons she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. The resident said:
    1. Her 6-year-old daughter who has autism and suffers with asthma had been through unnecessary hospital treatment for suspected carbon monoxide exposure, which had been traumatic for her.
    2. Her carbon monoxide alarm was connected to the mains, so she did not agree that low batteries could be the cause of the issue.
    3. She felt the compensation was not adequate to cover her family’s distress and inconvenience in having to leave their home for 3 weeks, particularly given she had continued to pay rent during the period when unable to use the home.
  15. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 March 2023, in which it:
    1. Confirmed it had reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and found this to be fair and reasonable.
    2. Said that low batteries were just one possible reason for the carbon monoxide alarm issue.
    3. Maintained its offer to provide the resident with a payment of £350.
  16. The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 5 May 2023, through which she is seeking an increased compensation payment for the distress and inconvenience she and her family experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident raised a separate, earlier incident where she had lost access to heating and hot water around January 2022. The resident has confirmed the landlord dealt with this under a separate complaint at the time of the incident, and she accepted a resolution from the landlord through this process.
  2. As this matter was raised as a complaint and resolved between the landlord and resident, it is not being considered as a part of this investigation report.

Suspected carbon monoxide leak

  1. The evidence seen suggests the landlord and the engineer who attended on 7 January 2023 did not communicate during the visit to enable the required parts to be ordered on that date. The landlord confirmed it had ordered parts on 10 January 2023, but this was only after the resident requested an update on 9 January 2023. This inaction from the landlord and engineer appears to have delayed the matter by 3 days.
  2. The landlord said in its stage one response that the problem lay with the resident’s carbon monoxide alarm, rather than with the boiler. However, there is no evidence the landlord sent anyone to check or repair the alarm. Under section 8.21 of the landlord’s Gas Safety Policy, it is responsible for installing working carbon monoxide alarms in all properties containing gas fittings or appliances. Had the landlord been sure the problem lay with the alarm; it should have raised an emergency repair to resolve this. This is a significant failing.
  3. While there has not been a copy of a report from Wales and West Utilities, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to assume that they would have checked and identified evidence of carbon monoxide using their own equipment, hence their action of isolating the gas supply and advice that the resident should leave the property for 24 hours. Had they found no evidence of carbon monoxide, it is likely they would have turned their attention to the alarm and would not have isolated the gas.
  4. The circumstances of the case, and the lack of any evidence from the landlord that the carbon monoxide alarm was faulty, point to the problem likely having been caused by a genuine carbon monoxide leak rather than a faulty alarm. The landlord’s delay in resolving the issue with the boiler and in not attending to what it suspects is a faulty carbon monoxide alarm is substantial and amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s call notes from 12 January 2023 show it told the resident to wait until the issue was resolved before seeking compensation from it. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”. Given this definition, the landlord should have raised a complaint when the resident expressed dissatisfaction during the telephone calls on 9 January 2023 and 12 January 2023. The landlord appears to have only acknowledged the complaint in response to the resident’s email of 12 January 2023.
  2. The Complaint Handling Code provides guidance to landlords on how they should act when handling complaints from residents. Section 3.11 of the Complaint Handling Code says landlords should:
    1. Log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Send out a stage one decision within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by which it will issue the response (this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason).
    3. Send out a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by which it will issue the response (this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason).
  3. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, it did not provide its response within 10 working days. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would respond by 27 January 2023, which would have exceeded the 10-working day target by 4 days. However, the landlord then delayed its response twice – to 17 February 2023 and 24 February 2023 – and it did not provide good reason for the delays. The resident waited 46 days in total for the landlord’s stage one response, which was a significant failing on the part of the landlord under the Complaint Handling Code requirements.
  4. The landlord only told the resident on 10 February 2023 that it was delaying its stage 1 response until 17 February 2023, so there was a period of 10 working days from 27 January 2023 during which the resident received no updates after the landlord missed its response target date. This is contrary to section 3.19 of the Complaint Handling Code, which states the landlord should keep the resident regularly updated and informed even where there is no new information to provide.
  5. In its complaint response, the landlord suggested the reason for the alarm going off could be that it is faulty. It was the first time this explanation had been given in the file. There is no evidence on the file for the landlord to have drawn that conclusion. Despite the landlord raising something so significant, no arrangement was made for an inspection, diagnosis or repair of the alarm it considered may be faulty. This was not a solution-focussed approach in its complaint handling as this issue was not put right and was left open-ended.
  6. Section 5.7 of the Complaint Handling Code, which provides guidance on appropriate resolutions, states landlords should give consideration to the specific circumstances of the case, including but not limited to:
    1. The severity of any service failure or omission.
    2. The cumulative impact on the resident.
    3. A resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
  7. It was correct that the landlord offered to reimburse the rent payment for the period in question, because the resident was unable to make use of the property while the engineers were investigating the boiler.
  8. The landlord offered a payment of £68 compensation in addition to this. In making this offer, the landlord did not appear to take into account the impact the disruption had on the resident and her young family, including her daughter who has autism and would have been particularly affected by the disruption. Given these circumstances, the offer made by the landlord was not reflective of the detriment caused to the resident and her family.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report of suspected carbon monoxide leak.
    2. Complaint.

Orders

  1. It is hereby ordered that, within one week of the date of this report, the landlord investigates and resolves any potential fault with the carbon monoxide alarm.
  2. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £982. This comprises:
    1. £282 to cover the rent costs between 3 January 2023 and 20 January 2023.
    2. £600 to cover the distress and inconvenience faced by the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the suspected carbon monoxide leak.
    3. £100 to address the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. It is ordered that, within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.