London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202005079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005079

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 March 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlords handling of allegations made about the resident by its contractor;
2. the capping of the resident’s gas supply;
3. the subsequent boiler repairs, and;
4. complaint handling.

Background

Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 the landlord must arrange maintenance for all gas installations, pipe work, appliances and flues, which it owns or have provided for tenants use, and arrange for a gas safety check to be carried out every 12 months by competent persons who are registered with the Gas Safe Scheme.
The landlord’s Gas Safety Policy states that when the gas supply to an occupied dwelling is capped off it will undertake a person-centred risk assessment and any local vulnerability checks, and report the outcome to the relevant teams.
The landlord’s repair policy as was in place at the time of the matters complained about sets out that when diagnosing repairs that are reported by vulnerable residents it would consider whether the defect was putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health; and treat repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk.
The landlord’s complaint policy as was in place at the time of the matters complained about sets out a two-stage complaint process. Where a customer remained dissatisfied, they would need to confirm what aspects of the complaint remained outstanding or had not been addressed to determine whether escalation was warranted or not. Escalation would not be warranted in the following circumstances:
1. It involved a request for compensation which was contrary to the Compensation Policy.
2. All resolution actions had been completed effectively in line with policy and procedures.
3. The action taken was set out by statue or regulation.
4. Legal action was being taken.
5. The customer’s desired outcome was outside of landlord’s responsibility or remit.
At review stage, a senior manager not previously involved with the complaint, would be supported by the Customer Relations Team to carry out a robust review of the customer’s complaint.

Summary of events

Allegation of abusive behaviour

In September 2019 the Ombudsman issued a report on a complaint that the resident had made about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs, in which an allegation that the resident had been abusive to a contractor on 29 November 2018 was referenced. The resident took this matter up with the landlord following receipt of the Ombudsman’s report, and in January and March 2021 received stage one and two formal complaint responses, in which the landlord acknowledged that the resident had not been abusive, apologised for the allegation and awarded £220 compensation, made up of £120 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the time and effort the resident had taken to resolve the matter.

Gas supply/boiler repair

The resident has explained that he was away from his property between 6 March 2020 until 25 August 2020. When he returned, he found that the gas supply to the property had been capped. He reported this to the landlord (who attended and reconnected the supply), and also contacted the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 September 2020 setting out the resident’s complaint that his gas supply had been disconnected, which he felt was due to prejudice.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 September 2020 and provided a response on 25 September 2020. In this it explained that gas contractors had tried to contact the resident in April 2020 to arrange a gas safety check. As further efforts over the following weeks to contact the resident to arrange this were not successful, the gas supply was capped (from the outside of the property) in line with gas-regulations.
The letter then said that the resident reported the boiler not working on 1 September 2020. The contractor attended that same day, completed the gas safety check and uncapped the gas supply. On 11 September 2020 the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water, and declined to allow the same contractor to attend, requesting an alternative. This was arranged, and a different contractor attended that same day, leaving the boiler working, but with a recommendation for a new one to be installed due to age and condition.
The landlord noted the resident’s comments that it had been prejudiced towards him, and said that it had considered its records and the outcome of the resident’s contact with the repair team, housing department and the repair contact centre, but found no evidence that this was the case. The landlord invited the resident to submit any evidence he might have to support his claim. It noted a warning that the resident had been given about his behaviour, and said, ‘In order to have repair works completed you will need to contact the repair team to book these works in.’

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’ If not, order/s will be made to provide a remedy for the resident.

Allegations made by contractor.

Following receipt of the Ombudsman’s report, the resident raised this issue with the landlord as a complaint, denying that he had been abusive, and inviting it to listen to a recording he had of the incident.
On 19 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident as a follow up to a meeting it had with him on 23 September 2019. It confirmed that at the meeting the Ombudsman’s investigation report was considered. The letter stated ‘It was alleged in their response that you were abusive to a heating engineer who attended your home on the 29th November 2018 to fix your heating. I listened to a recording you had made of the conversation and as a result I do not agree with the allegation made in the Ombudsman’s letter. It was clear from the recording that you did not use abusive language in your conversation with the engineer.’
It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to have met with the resident to discuss this and provide an opportunity for him to present his evidence. It was also fair that it wrote to the resident following this confirming that he had not been abusive. However, it was not the Ombudsman alleging that the resident had been abusive.
Telephone notes following this suggest that the resident continued to contact the landlord as he was unhappy with the outcome and wanted a further investigation. On 17 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he had made a complaint regarding a contractor’s allegation that he had been abusive towards him on 29 November 2018. He noted that the landlord had agreed in a letter dated October 2019 that he had not been abusive. He stated that in another letter dated 11 December 2019 the landlord had said that the contractor was still investigating the matter and the resident would be updated. However, no update had been provided. The resident explained that he was unsure if this matter had been raised as a formal complaint, and confirmed that he wanted it to be.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the letter dated 11 December 2019, but if it was the case that the contractor was investigating, then this would have been a reasonable action and the landlord should have updated the resident on the outcome. However, the Ombudsman has seen no indication that the resident received a reply to his 17 February 2020 letter, and no further records on this matter until 24 November 2020, when the resident contacted the landlord and raised another complaint.
The landlord then spoke with the resident on 3 December 2020 to clarify the complaint, during which the resident referred to his complaint letter of 17 February 2020. The record shows that a stage one response was sent on 22 January 2021. In this the landlord set out the history of the matter, and concluded that it had not apologised in its 18 October 2029 letter. It said, ‘I am sorry that [the landlord] did not apologise…I am sorry that the allegation made by our contractor was upsetting for you. I hope that this letter provides you with comfort that I have listened to your complaint.’ The record then shows that the stage two response was sent on 1 March 2021, although there are no details of the escalation request.
The stage two letter again offered sincere apologies for the matter, acknowledged how distressing it had been for the resident, and awarded £220 in compensation. The landlord also said it would use the complaint to feedback and ensure that it obtained all the facts before replying to a complaint in the future.
There were failings on the part of the landlord here; from the initial incorrect allegation, to the lack of follow up in late 2019, and a failure to respond to the resident’s February 2020 complaint. The delay in dealing with the matter was frustrating for the resident, who already felt distressed and aggrieved by the allegation that had been made. There is no evidence that the landlord followed up the matter with the contractor.
However, the landlord’s acknowledgments, apologies, and offer of compensation were proportionate and reasonable actions to ‘put things right’ for the resident. The £220 amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own compensation guidance in cases where there has been a failure, but no significant impact on the outcome of the matter. In addition, it has taken action to ‘learn from outcomes.’ Therefore, no maladministration is found.

Gas supply

The landlord’s records show that the gas supply was capped at the property in June 2020 as it was unable to carry out the annual gas safety check due to lack of access. It is reasonable for a landlord to cap a gas supply if all attempts to gain access for the safety check have been unsuccessful.
The Ombudsman has asked for copies of any notices sent to the address trying to arrange access for the check, but the landlord has not been able to provide this, seemingly due to a change of contactor around this time. This is a shortcoming on the part of the landlord, which should be able to evidence that due process was followed, with at least three ‘documented attempts’ to gain access to complete the safety check done.
However, in this case even had due process been followed correctly and notices and warning letters sent, the resident himself has confirmed that he was away from the property from March 2020 until August 2020, and so would not have received these in any case.
There are emails from April and June 2020 that show the landlord discussing the lack of access, and the fact that the resident was out of the country. It concluded that it had a duty to make the property is safe and so would cap the external meter.
As the landlord could not arrange access to carry out the safety check, it was not unreasonable for it to have capped the supply externally to ensure the property was safe. The evidence available shows that this was done with its legal gas safety obligations in mind, with no indication of unfair treatment of the resident.
The records then show that the resident first made contact with the landlord regarding lack of gas supply at his home on 28 August 2020, saying that it had been tampered with. The landlord advised him this was something he would need to raise with his energy supplier. However, the records also show that a repair order was raised that same day for no heating/hot water, with an appointment scheduled for 1 September 2020 as a ‘category 2’. This was then amended to ‘category 1’. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 30 August 2020 about the matter and was told someone would be out that day, but when the landlord subsequently contacted its contractor on 30 August 2020, it had not raised the job correctly. The records show that by this point the resident was aware that the gas supply had been capped.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out timeframes for repairs. There is reference to category/priority repairs in the documentation available, but no information on what these categories are/apply to. Having said this, the landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities, and lack of heating and hot water would usually be considered an urgent repair. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have attended within 24/48 hours of the report.
There was a failing here in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and it would seem that the job being raised incorrectly mean that it took two to three more days longer than it should have for the gas supply to be reinstated, leaving the resident with no heating and hot water during this period. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities, this was unreasonable, and a failing on the part of the landlord. The supply was reinstated on 1 September 2020.
As this has not been recognised in the formal response to the complaint, it cannot be said that the landlord has taken any action to ‘put things right’. Therefore, an order for remedy is made below. This order takes into account the additional two/three day period that the resident was without heating and hot water, along side the fact that this was during summer, and so a lack of heating would have had less of an impact.

Boiler repairs

In the following days the resident made a number of contacts with the landlord complaining about the fact that the gas had been capped, and his belief that the landlord was prejudiced against him. He was advised that the landlord was dealing with his concerns.
A telephone record dated 10 September 2020 shows that the boiler at the property had been listed for renewal by contractor A. It was noted that the boiler, ‘…may be not working properly as it needs to be replaced.’ However, the resident was refusing to allow this. It is not recorded in the repair records, but this indicates that the operative that had attended to reinstate the gas on 1 September 2020 had found the boiler in need of replacement. The boiler was left working, and so presumably the replacement was not treated as an urgent repair, which was reasonable, but it would have been appropriate to have raised an order for the renewal at this time. However, there is no evidence of an order being raised for the replacement. This may possibly have been due the resident’s refusal, but this is not clear.
On 11 September 2020 the resident reported no hot water at the property. He also said that he did not want contractor A to attend. Therefore, contractor B attended that same day. A note from a staff member that was in the area that day noted that they had seen contractor B on site, who reported that the resident had refused to allow access. The staff member noted that they advised, ‘I asked them to buzz him again and if he refuses to let them in they should leave and call their office.’
The resident informed this Service that the operative repaired the boiler on this date and restored hot water, though confirmed that the boiler required replacement and that someone would attend by 18 September 2020 in relation to this, however he had no contact from the landlord to arrange the replacement.
It is not until 18 September 2020 that the records show an order raised to replace the boiler to contractor B. The resident then stated that he would not accept calls from contractor B, and wanted to be advised of works and the appointment by letter. The repair records record an appointment on 21 September 2020 for which there was no access.
The landlord has noted that it wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 ‘encouraging him to contact the office and make arrangements for gas repair works.’ The job was raised again on 6 October 2020, and an appointment was made for the 13 October 2020, when the new boiler was fitted.
In light of the above, it would seem that there was a delay of around two weeks with the landlord raising the order to replace the boiler. However, there is no indication that the resident was without heating/hot water during this period, and so this did not adversely impact him.
While there were shortcomings here on the part of the landlord, these were not so serious as to warrant a finding of maladministration.
Finally, in terms of the complaint handling, the landlord did not follow its complaint policy when responding to this issue. No stage one response was issued, and instead the landlord replied at stage two and then directed the resident to this Service.
This was unreasonable, and no explanation has been provided as to why the complaint policy was not followed. Further, the response stated that the recommendation for a new boiler was made on 11 September 2020, whereas records show that the recommendation was made before then, and so the delay in this being actioned has not been recognised. Neither was the delay in reinstating the gas supply identified.
This highlights the risk of providing only one response to a complaint, with the opportunity lost to look again at a matter and identity issues that may have been missed initially.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Section 54 of the Scheme:
1. The landlord provided a ‘reasonable redress’ in relation to the complaint about its handling of allegations made about the resident by its contractor.
2. There was maladministration in relation to the capping of the gas supply.
3. There was no maladministration in relation the subsequent boiler repairs.
4. There was maladministration in relation to the complaint handling.

Reasons

While there were failures on the part of the landlord regarding the allegations made about the resident, it has provided reasonable redress for this.
It was not unreasonable for the landlord to cap the gas supply given it was unbale to carry out the gas safety check. However, there was a delay in reinstating this once the resident returned home and contacted the landlord.
While there was a delay in raising the order to replace the boiler, this was not so serious a failing to warrant a finding of maladministration, and the delay caused no adverse effect on the resident.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy in relation to the complaint about the gas supply and boiler repairs.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £150, comprised of:
1. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in reinstating his gas supply.
2. £50 for the failure in the complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £220 previously offered in compensation for the complaint about allegations made by a contractor.
The landlord should ensure that it keeps copies of ‘documented attempts’ to gain access to carry out gas safety checks.
The landlord should ensure that it follows it complaint policy, providing responses at both stage one and stage two.