Lambeth Council (202302113)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302113

Lambeth Council

26 November 2024

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:
   1. Annual gas safety check appointments.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 5-bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority.
3. On 30 May 2022 the landlord (via its appointed contractor) wrote to the resident to let them know their annual gas safety check was due. The resident contacted the contractor and arranged an appointment for 4 July 2022.
4. On 4 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had attended but had been unable to access the property. It said it had booked an appointment for 13 July 2022 to complete the gas safety check.
5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 October 2022. They said:
   1. They had made complaints about the landlord’s contractor not attending on 4 July 2022 directly to the contractor on 6 July 2022 and 23 August 2022. They had not received a full response.
   2. They did not believe the landlord was taking gas safety checks seriously despite previous complaints they had made.
   3. They wanted to know:
      1. Why the contractor had not attended on 4 July 2022.
      2. Why they had not been notified about the non-attendance.
      3. Why the landlord had sent them a letter saying it had been unable to access their property.
      4. Why the contractor had not provided a full response to their complaint.
      5. What the landlord would be doing to ensure the contractor attends all agreed appointments in the future or notifies residents when it is unable to do so.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 January 2023. It said:
   1. It apologised for the delay in providing a response. It was currently working through a backlog of cases.
   2. It noted the resident had been in contact with the contractor and that the contractor had provided them with responses. It apologised for any upset that had been caused.
   3. It provided details about a missed appointment in January 2022 for repairs to the resident’s radiators. It stated £20 had been paid to the resident in February 2022 in relation to this missed appointment.
   4. It believed all the resident’s gas repairs had been resolved, but that the resident should let it know if this was not the case.
   5. It was partly upholding the complaint in acknowledgement of the delays and that an improved level of communication would have been beneficial.
7. The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process on 23 January 2023. They said they were dissatisfied with the stage 1 response as it did not investigate the points they had raised in their complaint. They were also unhappy with the length of time it had taken the landlord to issue the response.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 27 February 2023. It said:
   1. Its stage 1 response had provided the reason and an apology for the delay. It apologised again for the delay and the time and trouble caused to the resident.
   2. The content of the letter sent on 4 July 2022 was standard wording which describes the actions the landlord will take if it cannot obtain access to a property.
   3. It apologised if the resident found the tone of the letters alarming or distressing, but advised the intent was to explain and stress the importance of residents allowing access for statutory checks.
   4. Its contractor had confirmed an engineer had attended on 4 July 2022 but was unable to gain access. It was satisfied the correct procedures had been followed and it did not consider it was a missed appointment. It advised that meant there was no compensation due.
   5. If the resident had a missed appointment or the contractor had not notified them it would not be attending then they should refer to the contractor’s complaint policy. It advised the policy did not specifically detail what to do in the case of a missed appointment but advised where any complaint or concerns could be addressed.
9. On 21 February 2024 the resident referred their complaint to this service and asked that we investigate. They were dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. They disagreed with the landlord’s explanation about the appointment of 4 July 2022 and subsequent letter. They were also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of their complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has raised concerns about the contractor’s handling of the gas safety appointments and its handling of the complaint they made to it. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaints about members of the Scheme. The resident’s landlord is a member of the Scheme; however, its contractor is not. This means that the Ombudsman can only consider the actions of the contractor where it was acting as an agent of the landlord.
11. In relation to the gas safety appointments, the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord. The landlord was therefore responsible for these actions and the Ombudsman can consider these matters as part of this investigation.
12. There is no evidence to indicate that the contractor had any agreement with the landlord to act on its behalf in relation to complaints. While the contractor does have a complaints policy this appears to be its own internal policy. The Ombudsman therefore cannot investigate the contractor’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of annual gas safety check appointments

13. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 impose a legal obligation on landlords to carry out annual gas safety inspections at properties they own.
14. There is a clear dispute between the resident and the landlord over whether it attended on 4 July 2022. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord’s contractor on 8 June 2022 to request it moved their gas safety check to 4 July 2022 between 8am and 1pm. The contractor responded the same day to advise it had rebooked the appointment to the requested date and time.
15. The landlord’s evidence of attendance on 4 July 2022 shows the engineer started travelling to the resident’s property at 13:46 and was unable to gain access at 14:22. This was outside the time agreed with the resident.
16. There is no evidence that the resident or the landlord had rebooked the appointment. The resident was not obliged to remain in their property or provide access outside the agreed date and time. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to reach a view in its final response that the resident had refused access, rather than it had missed the appointment.
17. The landlord’s letter of 4 July 2022 stated:
    1. It understood the resident had failed to provide access or contact it to make mutually agreed arrangements for another date.
    2. The resident had failed to comply with the terms of their tenancy conditions.
    3. That if the resident failed to provide access in the future it would instruct solicitors, without further notice to the resident, and would seek an order that the resident pays its legal costs.
18. The resident has stated they considered this letter to be highly offensive. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s view, the explanation provided by the landlord about the wording and tone used was reasonable. It was also reasonable for the landlord to have apologised if the resident found the content alarming or distressing.
19. The landlord has not provided any evidence of what checks it did before it wrote to the resident on 4 July 2022. Given that the resident had acted promptly in rearranging their appointment after the landlord had initially contacted them and had not been responsible for the lack of access on 4 July 2022, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s approach was unreasonable. It would have been more reasonable to have sent a letter advising it had been unable to complete the gas safety check and offering a new appointment, without alleging the resident had failed to provide access or been in breach of their tenancy conditions.
20. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord completed the gas safety check on 13 July 2022. It therefore appears there was limited detrimental impact on the resident.
21. The landlord has provided copies of gas safety check appointment letters that it sent to the resident on 30 May 2022, 16 June 2022, and 1 July 2022. It also appears the landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 June 2022 but was unable to gain access. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and the processes it used to carry out gas safety checks. Neither the letters of 16 June 2022 and 1 July 2022 nor the visit on 30 June 2022 should have been necessary after the resident had rearranged their appointment on 8 June 2022.
22. While the letter of 16 June 2022 simply notifies the resident that the landlord is required to carry out a gas safety check and that it had booked a further appointment, the letter of 1 July 2022 makes the same statements to those in the 4 July 2022 letter. It therefore raises the same concerns about the approach being taken by the landlord. It would be appropriate for the landlord to adequately satisfy itself that a resident has failed to provide access or arrange a mutually agreed appointment before alleging they have failed to comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement or threatening legal action.
23. It was not appropriate for the landlord, when responding to the resident’s question about how it would ensure the contractor attends future appointments, to refer the resident to the contractor’s complaint policy. The resident’s contractual relationship is with the landlord, not the contractor.
24. Landlords should have service level agreements in place when a third party is providing services on its behalf. These should include clear information about how the landlord will monitor that the third party is providing the expected level and quality of service and how it will take action if this is not the case.
25. The landlord should have been able to provide the resident with a clear explanation of its agreement with the contractor. This should have made it clear what the expectations on the contractor were, what the landlord had agreed about how any concerns about the contractor’s service would be dealt with, and what actions the landlord could take if necessary.
26. Although the detriment to the resident in this case was minor, there were several failings by the landlord. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of annual gas safety check appointments.
27. The landlord did not offer any compensation in this case. This was not reasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may pay £20 compensation for missed appointments. It appears that the landlord has made such payments to the resident for other missed appointments. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £20 in recognition of the missed appointment of 4 July 2022.
28. The Ombudsman also considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident a further £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

29. The landlord has provided a copy of its current complaint policy which sets out timescales for stage 1 and final responses. These are in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’). The timescales are 5 working days to acknowledge at both stages, and then a further 10 working days for a stage 1 response and 20 working days for a final response.
30. The landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 landlords were expected to respond to complaints within the same timescales as in the current Code.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request promptly (within one working day), but then took 59 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 24 working days to issue its final response. This was not reasonable.
32. Under the Code (both 2022 and current) landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for their decisions. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide a response to the substantive matters the resident had raised in their complaint. The landlord’s final response did not provide clear reasons for the decisions it had made. In particular, the decision to refer the resident to the contractor’s complaint policy in relation to missed appointments. This was not appropriate.
33. It is important that landlords provide full and clear responses. This shows residents that their complaint is being taken seriously and allows them to understand what the landlord has considered when reaching a decision. This may then reduce or remove the need for further escalation of the complaint.
34. There is no evidence the landlord had an agreement with the contractor about how the contractor should handle complaints relating to actions it had taken on behalf of the landlord. While it would be for the landlord and contractor to decide what role, if any, the contractor should have in the complaints process, it should be clear to residents how to make a stage 1 complaint and who will investigate it. If the contractor had no role in the complaints process then the landlord should have an agreement in place to ensure the contractor promptly passes all relevant complaints to it.
35. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
36. The resident chased the landlord 3 times during the stage 1 process. Twice directly to the landlord and once via their councillor. While the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in responding at stage 1 and apologised for this, as well as for the time and trouble for resident needing to escalate their complaint, it did not offer any compensation. The Ombudsman does not consider this was reasonable.
37. Having considered the circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble of having to raise and pursue a complaint. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of annual gas safety check appointments.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

40. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination, pay the resident compensation of £195, which is comprised of:
    1. £20 for the missed appointment of 4 July 2022.
    2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of annual gas safety check appointments.
    3. £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

41. The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Carry out a review of its relevant policies, procedures, and agreements relating to annual gas safety checks. It should ensure that these contain suitable provisions to minimise the risk of similar failures to those identified in this report occurring in the future.
    2. It must confirm to this service that it has completed this review.
    3. If it identifies any required changes, it must tell this service what those changes are and how it intends to implement them.