London Borough of Hillingdon (202009185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009185

London Borough of Hillingdon

10 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a gas safety certificate.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local council. In 2019 the landlord began adaptation works to the resident’s home.
3. The resident raised a complaint about the adaptation works in March 2020. She asked for a gas certificate from when an operative disconnected the gas (in December 2019). The landlord said it would provide the certificate at the final handover (it is unclear when this happened). In November 2020 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the gas certificate did not have the signature of the operative who disconnected the gas. In its final response, the landlord said the works completed were satisfactory, and that it would not respond further on the matter.
4. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said the landlord had dismissed her concerns that an unqualified operative had disconnected her gas and left her home vulnerable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained that she believed the landlord had allowed an unqualified operative to disconnect her gas. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident raising this concern with the landlord as part of her formal complaint. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord needs an opportunity to investigate issues before the Ombudsman becomes involved. The resident should raise her concerns with the landlord first, and then, once the landlord has fully investigated them, she can bring them to this Service if necessary.

Handling of concerns with a gas safety certificate

6. The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s original complaint by clarifying that the gas certificate would be provided at the final handover of the property.
7. In the resident’s stage two complaint she said the operative who disconnected the gas was not the same person who had signed the gas certificate. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said its position was that the completed works were satisfactory, and that it would not respond further on the issue. The landlord’s records show it called the resident shortly after her stage two complaint. Details of the conversation have not been provided for this investigation. As such it is unclear whether she added additional points to her complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord’s response lacked detail, and did not address the resident’s complaint in its entirety. It missed its opportunity to reassure her that the correct operative had signed the certificate or to explain what it would do to rectify the situation if it had been signed by without following due process. 
8. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that we expect landlords to address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions made. Therefore, in this case the landlord’s response was unreasonable as it was not in line with the Code. It demonstrated poor complaint handling as it dismissed her concerns and did not give them due consideration.
9. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that once it has completed its complaint investigation, it will advise residents to either refer their complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), or this Service. It says the Housing Ombudsman looks at complaints about registered providers of social housing, and the LGSCO are suitable when the “complaint is about any other Council service”.
10. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it advised the resident to refer her complaint to the LGSCO. The landlord incorrectly signposted her as her complaint was better suited to this Service as it related to housing repairs. Its complaints policy does correctly set out when the resident should contact this Service, thus, this was due to human error. There was, however, no significant detriment to the resident as she contacted this Service within a week of the landlord’s final decision.

Determination

11. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Orders

12. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the landlord’s failings in terms of complaint handling.
13. The landlord should address in writing the matter of the resident’s concerns about the gas certificate being signed by the wrong individual
14. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should update this Service on its compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

15. While it would likely be out of time for the landlord to consider a new complaint on whether the operative who capped the gas was unqualified, the landlord should consider addressing this in the same letter required by the order above. This would minimise further protracted correspondence on this matter.