London Borough of Barnet (202304167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304167

London Borough of Barnet

25 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide leaks at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. This is a 3-bed flat, and the landlord is a local council. The rent was £157.13 per week, at the time of the complaint. The property is managed by an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO). For the purposes of this complaint, the ALMO will be referred to as ‘the landlord.’
There are multiple household vulnerabilities noted on file, including physical and sensory disabilities and significant physical illnesses.
The resident advises that her carbon monoxide alarm first sounded on 18 December 2022. She said that as this only sounded a couple of times and then stopped, she assumed this was an issue with the sensor or the battery.
The resident’s carbon monoxide alarm sounded and flashed red on 24 December 2022. She turned off the gas at the meter and opened her windows. She called the national gas distribution network (formerly known as the national grid) to report the issue, who attended within 45 minutes. Its contractors told her that carbon monoxide was still present in every room, despite the gas being off for 45 minutes and air circulating from the windows.
The national gas distribution network contractor found a fault with the resident’s central heating boiler. It capped the meter outlet due to a gas escape from the boiler and categorised it as “immediately dangerous” and “do not use.”
Between 24 and 27 December 2022, the resident called the landlord on 4 occasions to report that the gas distribution network had attended and capped her meter due to a gas escape from the boiler. She said she had no heating, hot water, or cooking facilities. On each occasion, the landlord said that it would attend as it was aware that the resident’s household was vulnerable, but it did not attend until 27 December 2022.
On its visit of 27 December 2022, the landlord’s contractor said it could only make the area safe and could carry out no works. The resident reiterated that the area had already been made safe, as she had explained on the telephone. It told her to contact the landlord the following day.
The resident called the landlord again on 28 December 2022. The landlord attended the same day, noting that the resident’s household was “very disabled.” It checked the boiler for gas leaks and deemed it to be safe. It reinstated the gas supply to the boiler. It found “high readings of carbon monoxide” on the resident’s gas cooker and disconnected the gas and capped the supply as it categorised it as “dangerous.” It also fitted new carbon monoxide alarms, bled the kitchen radiator and increased the pressure in the water tank.
Further to the above works, the resident called the landlord again, later that day (28 December 2022). She reported that the carbon monoxide alarm from the boiler on her balcony and the carbon monoxide alarm in the kitchen were both sounding. She stressed the urgency of the situation as the boiler was situated near the main entrance, where other residents often lit cigarettes. The landlord told the resident it had logged the job and would be attending that day. She asked the landlord if she should contact the national gas distribution network but was offered no response to this. The landlord did not attend.
The resident called the national gas distribution network straight after calling the landlord (28 December 2022). It advised her to open the windows and turn off the gas at the meter. It then attended and capped the gas and told her that the landlord’s contractor may have left something loose from its inspection. The resident stated that she wanted an investigation as she believed the gas leak had always been coming from the boiler and her gas cooker may have been capped off for no reason.
During its visit on 28 December 2022, the national gas distribution network’s contractor found a fault on the central heating boiler. It noted “suspected leaking fumes” from the boiler so disconnected the boiler to make safe. It categorised the boiler as “immediately dangerous” and “do not use.” It supplied a temporary hot plate and 2 fan heaters.
The resident called the landlord again on 28 December 2022 to advise that the gas distribution network had turned off the gas supply again, due to the fault with the boiler. The landlord’s repair records of that day mark the job as “ the national gas distribution network have been and the boiler needs to be reconnected.”
The landlord attended on 29 December 2022. It uncapped the meter, marked the boiler as “safe” and turned the boiler back on, after carrying out a carbon monoxide test. It also installed a new carbon monoxide detector. Thirty minutes after the landlord’s visit, the carbon monoxide detector sounded again. The resident called the gas distribution network, who attended and found a fault on the central heating boiler again. It noted carbon monoxide readings in the property, and a gas leak from the boiler. It turned off the gas meter, marked the boiler as “immediately dangerous and do not use” and advised the resident to seek medical help if required. It noted that a co-investigation was needed between it and the landlord.
The resident called the landlord the same day, 29 December 2022 and it attended whilst the gas distribution network operative was still on-site and provided her with additional heaters. The resident noted that the gas distribution network had a vulnerable resident’s policy and offered to inspect and repair her gas cooker, but she stated that the landlord did not allow it to do this. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any evidence in support of this claim.
On 30 December, the resident called the landlord again to chase her boiler repair and gas supply. It attended and found some defects inside the boiler and corrosion to the flue hood and chassis and on the burner. It suggested a boiler replacement. It also brought some oil heaters and isolated the gas supply to the resident’s cooker so she could get this inspected. It arranged a boiler inspection for 3rd January 2023. The resident said that she had to cancel a hospital appointment to be available for this date.
The landlord cancelled the inspection on 3 January 2023 and attended on 4 and 6 January 2023. It agreed to supply a new boiler.
The resident called the landlord on 10 and 12 January 2023 to chase the installation of the new boiler. The landlord replaced the boiler on 17 January 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2023 to report a leak with the new boiler, which was showing very low water pressure, and her heating and hot water was not working. The landlord’s contractor attended on 23 January 2023 and fixed the leak and increased the air pressure in the boiler. She reported a further leak from the boiler on 24 January 2023, which the landlord’s contractor sealed on the same day. It also showed her how to increase the water pressure on her boiler in case of any future problems.
The manufacturer of the resident’s cooker attended the resident’s property on 24 January 2023 and conducted a gas safety and carbon monoxide test on the cooker and other gas appliances in the property. It found no faults on the cooker and marked it and all other appliances as “safe.”
The resident sent a copy of her electricity bill to the landlord on 26 January 2023. She asked to claim £200 for the additional electricity consumed from 24 December 2022 to 24 January 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023 to submit a stage 1 complaint. She said the following:
1. She had 3 carbon monoxide leaks at the property, which made her unwell and exacerbated her health conditions. The landlord had put the household’s life in danger 3 times.
2. The landlord’s engineer had inadequately assessed that the gas should be turned back on when it should not have been. It stopped the national gas distribution network from assisting the resident, by saying it would deal with the issue.
3. There had been several missed appointments which caused her to cancel medical appointments.
4. She was claiming compensation for the effects on her family’s health and finances.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 3 February 2023 and told her she would receive a full response within 10 working days, by 17 February 2023. It then emailed her on 17 February 2023 to apologise for the delays and advised her she would receive a full response by 3 March 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 February 2023. It said the following:
1. It partially upheld the complaint.
2. The correct process when smelling gas or if the carbon monoxide alarm sounds, is to call the national gas distribution network, which the resident eventually did, and the network attended and capped the gas.
3. The carbon monoxide situation had not been brought to the landlord’s attention until 28 December 2022. The first time the landlord was informed of the carbon monoxide situation was on 28 December 2022, and the landlord’s contractor attended, in response to this call.
4. The cooker was identified as the source of carbon monoxide. Two engineers identified the cooker as the source on 2 separate visits and turned it off. The cooker was the resident’s responsibility as she owned it, so it would not compensate her for any additional food costs. The resident did not contact the cooker manufacturer until January 2023, and its contractor did not turn the cooker back on during its visit.
5. It would only award financial compensation for extra electricity usage from 28 December 2022, when it was first notified, until 24 January 2023 when the heating was resolved. This was 27 days.
6. The landlord had attended each appointment it had raised with the resident, apart from 3 January 2023 and 17 January 2023.
7. The landlord had provided fan heaters on 30 December 2022. It apologised for the days without heating and would compensate the resident for this, and for the days using the fan heaters.
8. The national gas network has right of entry so the landlord could not have denied permission to enter the resident’s home to make it safe. The network would have issued a reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences regulations (RIDDOR) if it was concerned.
9. The landlord had carried out a survey and decided to upgrade the resident’s boiler on 6 January 2023. This was delayed due to having to wait for materials. Its gas team should have updated the resident, and she had to wait too long for this repair.
10. It had learned from the complaint, including reducing waiting times for residents and improved communication regarding updates and delays.
11. Heating specialists had advised that a loss of pressure can be expected with installation of a new boiler, and this is not a defect. The resident should have been informed of the possibility of the loss of heating. The landlord’s gas manager would address this with his team, to pass this on to residents.
12. It offered the resident £216 compensation. This was made up of £135 towards the cost of extra electricity, £20 for 2 missed appointments and £61 for loss of amenity.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2023. She said that the landlord’s records were incorrect as she had contacted them numerous times until 28 December 2022, regarding “endangerment of life on 3 occasions”. She was also unhappy with the compensation offered.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 12 April 2023. It said the following:
1. There were no telephone records prior to 28 December 2022. If the resident had called from a different or withheld number, it would not have a record of this. The first record to its call centre was at 9.02 am on 28 December 2022. The first email regarding the complaint was 26 January 2023.
2. It had checked with its out of hours contractors and they said the only request they received was 27 December 2022 and they attended that day. It found no evidence that the resident had contacted the landlord daily before 27 December 2022, so it did not agree that it had endangered life at any point.
3. It apologised that its contractors were unable to reinstate the heating that evening and did not leave any fan heaters.
4. It offered a further £7 for the additional day of loss of amenity as the resident was without heating for 28 days, instead of the 27 days the landlord had previously calculated.
5. The resident’s cooker was the source of the leak, and it had been classified as unsafe by 2 engineers and left capped on 2 occasions by the national gas network.
6. The carbon dioxide was concerning, but it could find no evidence that it was responsible for the leak or that it prevented the gas network supplier from assisting the resident.
7. It accepted that the process to complete repairs to the boiler took longer than expected and was not seamless. It apologised for this and upheld this element of the complaint.
8. It offered £228 as full and final settlement of the issue.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 May 2023. She complained that she had no heating or cooking facilities for over a month, and that the household has serious disabilities and health conditions, which were exacerbated by the carbon monoxide leaks, and the lack of heating and cooking facilities. She provided a medical history for the family, including hospital admissions and appointments. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wanted an apology and compensation for the severe impact on her household. She also requested that the landlord provide training to its first contact staff when dealing with carbon monoxide emergencies, along with improved record keeping in respect of repairs reporting.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident’s distress, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of carbon dioxide leaks at her property.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it will keep the fittings in residents’ homes supplying gas, sanitation and heating systems in good repair and proper working order. Its repairs policy states that it is responsible for the safety of all gas heating installations including boilers and associated pipework.
The landlord’s gas safety information on its website advises residents to call the national grid any time day or night if they smell gas or if their carbon monoxide alarm sounds. It tells residents to turn off the gas supply at the meter, to open the windows and leave the home. It says residents should also contact the landlord/landlord’s contractor so it can take further action.
The landlord operates 24 hours call out services for emergencies through its appointed gas contractor. It states that in response to any other reported non emergency gas complaints from residents, the appointed gas supervisor will normally visit the site to investigate and rectify any problems, ensuring that the gas appliances and services are made safe before leaving.
It operates a tiered repairs service, depending on the urgency of the issue, as follows:
1. Emergency jobs will be attended to and made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours (where there is immediate risk of impact on residents’ well being or loss of services). All emergency repairs must be reported by telephone or in person, due to the urgent response required. The landlord will arrange an appointment to make safe. During the appointment, it will address the emergency to eliminate any high risk and make the home habitable, but it may not necessarily resolve the repair. If any further work is required, it will raise a new work order and raise a new appointment based on the priority of the repair.
2. Responsive repairs will be completed within 15 working days of the order being raised. This is where a repair needs to be completed but is not considered an immediate risk. “It may or may not be presenting a hindrance to the tenant and their ability to use the property or amenities correctly.”
3. Programmed works which are not ‘a first-time fix’ and will require a pre-inspection should be completed within 25 working days, inclusive of inspection.
The policy states that outside of normal working hours, residents can use the landlord’s telephone numbers to raise emergency repairs which cannot wait until the next working day. All calls received during such periods will be handled by its out of hours service.
It may carry out repairs with special consideration for residents who are vulnerable.
Residents are responsible for domestic appliances they own, including gas cookers.
Good record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. It is not appropriate that the landlord told the resident that she did not contact it until 28 December 2022 (which it later changed to 27 December 2022). This Service has seen the resident’s itemised mobile telephone bill. The resident called the landlord at 10.40 pm on 24 December 2022 and the call lasted 8 minutes. Although this Service does not have the call recordings, the resident stated that the landlord advised her that someone would attend the property that night as there were vulnerable people in the property. This Service has no reason to doubt the resident’s account, particularly as the call lasted for several minutes.
The resident’s itemised mobile phone bill also shows a telephone call to the landlord on 25 December 2022, lasting 7 minutes and a telephone call on 26 December 2022 lasting a further 7 minutes. The resident advises this Service that on each occasion, the landlord stated that it would attend but did not do so. It is unclear why the landlord did not have a log of these calls as the resident called from her mobile phone number, which the landlord has on file and there is no reason to believe she withheld her phone number. This points to poor record keeping and is a failure on the part of the landlord. Further, the fact it denied she had contacted it, caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. It also caused her significant distress as she feared for her household’s safety as well as being in a home with no heating, hot water or cooking facilities.
The landlord did not attend, when the resident made it aware that there had been a carbon monoxide leak, which had been made safe, and had no gas supply. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and is contrary to its policy, where it says it will attend within 4 hours after reports of an emergency. This is also contrary to the information on its website which instructs residents to call it after contacting the national gas network. This failure to attend caused the resident distress and frustration and severely impacted on the enjoyment of her home. This is particularly pertinent, as the landlord was aware of the household disabilities and it made no allowances for the resident’s vulnerabilities and individual circumstances, which is a failing and is not resident focussed.
It was further inappropriate that when the landlord’s contractor attended on 27 December 2022, it carried out no work and offered no heaters to the resident, particularly as it was winter, and the resident and her family were vulnerable. The resident had already advised the landlord that her gas had been switched off by the national gas network on 24 December 2022, due to a gas escape to the boiler. This Service would have expected the landlord to inspect the boiler to attempt to identify any faults. This lack of action caused the resident distress and frustration and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Although it was appropriate that the landlord tested the boiler on 28 December 2022 when it attended, it is unclear why it tested and switched off the supply to the gas cooker, when the national gas network had only found a gas escape/carbon monoxide from the boiler. Although it is appropriate that the landlord checked this, it is unclear why it was deemed to be unsafe, when this had not been flagged by the national gas network. It is also unclear why the landlord deemed the boiler to be safe, when the resident’s carbon dioxide alarms went off later that day, after the landlord’s attendance. The national gas network had once again identified a defect on the central heating boiler, with suspected leaking fumes and disconnected the boiler again, categorising it as “immediately dangerous.”
It is inappropriate that the landlord marked the job as “boiler needs to be reconnected” and switched the boiler back on, during its subsequent visit on 29 December 2022. The national gas network had deemed the boiler to be “dangerous,” and this was the third time in 2 days so this Service would have expected the landlord to carry out a thorough investigation of the issues. The fact that it did not, caused the resident additional distress and frustration, particularly as the carbon monoxide alarm sounded again 30 minutes after the landlord had switched the boiler back on. The resident was extremely anxious about the potentially serious health impacts of any gas leaks. This caused the resident time and trouble and had a severe impact on the enjoyment of her home as she had to call the national gas network, who then had to attend and isolate the gas and the boiler again.
It is also inappropriate that the landlord did not check the resident’s cooker again. As the boiler had been deemed to be unsafe by the national gas network on 3 occasions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to re-check the resident’s cooker to see if it was still registering a fault. Although the landlord’s responsive repairs policy advises that residents are responsible for their own gas cookers, it was aware of the resident’s disabilities and did not offer any additional assistance, so made no provision in respect of this. This is not in line with its responsive repairs policy, in respect of vulnerable residents.
It was appropriate that when the landlord attended again on 30 December 2022, that it isolated the cooker so that the resident could get this repaired. However, as stated above, it would have been reasonable to do this sooner.
It was also appropriate that during this visit, the landlord brought oil heaters and advised the resident that it would arrange for an inspection for a new boiler on 3 January 2023.
However, it was not appropriate that the landlord cancelled the appointment on 3 January 2023, as the resident advised that she had cancelled a hospital appointment that day, to be available for the landlord’s gas team. This caused her additional distress and inconvenience in having to rearrange the hospital appointment and impacted on the landlord/resident relationship.
Although it was appropriate that the landlord fitted a new boiler on 17 January 2023 and has acknowledged that the delays did not meet its service standards, the resident had been without hot water and heating for over 3 weeks at this point. This is an unreasonable delay, particularly due to the resident’s household’s disabilities. This continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home as the resident’s household had been significantly affected by the cold conditions, during winter. This caused her additional distress and inconvenience.
It is further unreasonable that there were 2 faults on the new boiler on both 21 January 2023 and 24 January 2023. This Service would expect the landlord to carry out a full and lasting repair on its first attendance, particularly as the boiler was less than a week old. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and impacted on the enjoyment of her home as she was still living in cold conditions and the household was vulnerable.
It was also inappropriate that in the landlord’s complaint responses, it told the resident that the source of her carbon monoxide emittance was due to her cooker, and that 2 different engineers had identified this. There is no evidence anywhere on file that there were 2 reports of faults with the cooker. There was only 1, which the landlord identified on 28 December 2022. This caused the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the resident’s trust in the landlord.
It is further unreasonable that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident’s cooker was identified as the source of the gas leak, so it was not responsible in any way. Although the landlord did identify the source of the leak as the resident’s cooker, the cooker was inspected by the manufacturer on 24 January 2023, and the manufacturer found no fault and no carbon monoxide readings. It provided evidence of all the tests carried out. The resident was left without cooking facilities for a month, which had a significant impact, particularly due to the serious illnesses of the household.
Further, the national gas network found the boiler to be the source of the leak on 3 occasions from 24 December 2022 until 29 December 2022 and deemed it to be unsafe. There is no mention of this in the landlord’s complaints responses to the resident. This points to the landlord not taking responsibility for its failings and not taking the evidence or the resident’s situation into account. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. It was not customer focused and caused the resident additional distress and frustration.
Due to the failings above, and the impact on the resident, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
It states that to put things right, it will acknowledge what went wrong and will amend a record or add a correction or addendum when appropriate.
The landlord’s compensation and financial loss policy offers discretionary compensation where it decides that there has been a failing in its service standards. It offers between £50 and £100 for moderate hardship and over £100 for severe hardship because of service failure. It also offers £10 for each missed appointment and 10% of the weekly rent charge for loss of heating and hot water (after 24 hours providing no reasonable substitute was offered or provided). It offers financial compensation for financial loss such as increased heating bills due to disrepair and having to pay for take away food.
Although the landlord’s complaints policy advises that it will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days, it did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 7 working days after she submitted this. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint until 6 working days after she submitted this. Although these are short delays, this may have impacted on the time to resolve the substantive issues, which is a failing on the part of the landlord.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the calls the resident had made to the landlord from 24 December to 27 December 2022. This is contrary to its complaints policy, which states it will acknowledge and apologise for any failings. This caused her distress and frustration and impacted on the trust between the resident and the landlord.
It also failed to take any responsibility for any of the carbon monoxide issues associated with the boiler, despite evidence to the contrary. This caused the resident further distress and frustration and continued to impact on the landlord/resident relationship. Further, in its response to this Service’s information request, the landlord stated that the boiler repairs did not form part of the carbon monoxide issue and were incidental. This is contrary to the evidence that this Service has seen.
It also failed to provide the resident with any compensation for food costs as per its compensation policy, which sets out that it will compensate residents for take away food, due to disrepair. This is despite the resident having no gas and only one hot plate to cook from with a family of 3, one of whom had a disability, where eating certain foods at specific times was of paramount importance. Although the landlord’s policy sets out that residents are responsible for their own gas cookers, there is no evidence that the landlord checked the cooker again before the manufacturer turned it back on. The landlord also made no allowances for the household disabilities and significant impact and this is a failing on the part of the landlord.
Although the landlord did offer compensation for the delays and loss of amenity, this did not reflect the level of the significant adverse effect on the resident, nor did it consider her household vulnerabilities and personal circumstances. The landlord lacked empathy for the resident’s situation.
Due to the above, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of carbon monoxide leaks at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1380 (this replaces the £228 previously offered during the landlord’s internal complaints process) for the following:
  1. £180 for a contribution towards the cost of her electricity bill. This is a sum that the Ombudsman considers reasonable.
  2. £900 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the carbon monoxide leak.
  3. £300 for the complaint handling failures.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a case review to assess the failings identified in this report and provide an action plan to evidence how to avoid this happening again in the future.
2. Review its record keeping of repairs reported, in particular for emergency repairs.
3. Ensure all relevant staff are trained in responding to carbon monoxide concerns from residents.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.