Longhurst Group Limited (202008739)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008739

Longhurst Group Limited

23 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 landlord’s:
1. Handling of a request for repairs to the boiler.
2. Handling of a gas fire check and subsequent decision to cap the fire.
3. Response to report of a gas leak on 20 December 2020.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in 2009. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has responsibility for maintaining and, where appropriate, keeping in proper working order among other things the installation for the supply of gas and heating equipment.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that responsive repairs are split into two main categories: emergency repairs which will be attended to between two hours and twenty-four hours and made safe; appointed repairs will be completed within 21 days. The policy explains that emergency repairs are defects or faults which put the health, safety or security of a tenant at immediate risk or cause harm to the structure of the property. Emergency repairs will be attended to as soon as possible and prioritised depending on the nature of the emergency. All emergency repairs will be made safe within twenty-four hours.
The policy explains that properties with no heating or hot water will be attended to and made safe within twenty-four hours. It adds that, where a property has no heating or hot water, this will be attended to as an emergency repair.
Under the Right to Repair scheme the landlord has one day to carry out a repair if a resident does not have heating or hot water any time between 1 May and 31 October. Compensation is payable after one day and is paid up to a maximum of £50.
The landlord’s domestic and commercial heating safety policy says that all properties listed as requiring servicing shall be safety checked and serviced in a window of between ten and twelve months prior to the expiry date of the last safety certificate. It also says that, where gas fires and solid fuel appliances which are not the primary heating source are condemned as unsafe to use, the appliance will not be repaired and will be removed from the property and not replaced.
The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences (RIDDOR) 2013 is a legal requirement that covers mandatory reporting to the HSE of workplace injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences. RIDDOR 11(2) is a duty on the gas conveyor to make a report to the Health and Safety Executive (the HSE) where a gas fitting, flue or ventilation used in connection with gas could, in their opinion, be so dangerous that it could kill someone, make someone unconscious or cause them to be taken to hospital.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two. The complaints policy says a customer can only use stage two if one or more of the following criteria has been evidenced:
1. The response received is factually inaccurate.
2. The response received does not address the initial complaint.
3. There is evidence that its complaints process was not followed.
The policy adds that any new complaints or issues not raised during the initial complaint would be dealt with separately and are not grounds for an appeal.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that it will pay compensation according to the Right to Repair scheme. This scheme usually covers small repairs which could cause a health and safety problem if they are not dealt with fairly quickly. Compensation payable is £10 as a one-off payment for the first day after the expected completion date and then £2 for each further day the repair continues to be outstanding (up to a maximum of £50).
This procedure also says that the landlord will pay between £50 and £250 to recognise instances of service failure which resulted in some impact on the complainant.

Summary of events

Following a report of a repair by the resident, on 26 September 2020 the landlord’s gas contractor (the contractor) attended the property. They noted the heating was only coming on when the hot water was on and that a new valve was required and access to the airing cupboard would be required to carry out the work on the return visit.
On 15 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord saying that no-one had attended to fix her broken heating system. She said she had been sent an appointment for 20 October 2020 for a boiler check but asked about the part that was required.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord told the resident that it could not see anyone from out of hours attending within the last two weeks but that a contractor would attend within 24 hours as she had no heating.
There is evidence of a work ticket dated 20 October 2020 from the gas contractor that stated that a new valve was required. The box is ticked on the form which stated that the work had been completed.
On the same day, the gas fire was disconnected from the gas supply. The gas contractor noted the fire had failed the flue test as they were unable to check the chimney because rats were in the loft.
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord what would happen now the gas fire had been capped.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord asked the resident if the central heating had been repaired and was working as that was what its contractor had told it.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that her radiators were noisy and filling with water and getting hot, although the heating was not on. She added that the faulty valve had not been replaced; it was wobbly and on the wrong dial setting. She asked for someone to attend to repair it.
On 23 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service as she had no heating. A visit to the property scheduled that day did not go ahead; the contractor sent a text message to the resident to confirm that.
On 24 October 2020 the resident received a text at 12:47 pm saying that the contractor would arrive within half an hour. Later that day the resident told the landlord that the contractor did not turn up.
On 24 October 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about a missed appointment that day; she said the heating had not worked properly since September 2020 and she was unhappy that the gas fire had been capped and she was unable to use it.
On 28 October 2020 the resident told the landlord that she had engaged a different gas engineer to replace the valve and the heating system was now working properly. That repair took place on 26 October 2020.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had requested a report on the gas fire from the contractor and, once received, it would arrange an appointment for another appointment to see if it could be uncapped. In response, the resident told the landlord that the gas fire had been found to be safe.
On 24 November 2020 the resident chased up the landlord as she had not heard from them about another appointment for the gas fire.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. There was a delay in fixing the heating system. It apologised for that that and offered compensation of £32 in line with its right to repair scheme.
2. The contractor attended on 26 September 2020 and identified that replacement parts were needed to complete the repair which were fitted on 20 October 2020.
3. The contractor had confirmed they had no record of missed appointments.
4. The gas fire was capped as the contractor was unable to carry out a flue flow test because of an infestation of rodents in the loft. Following a visit by pest control, on 24 November 2020, they confirmed there had been no recent rodent activity in the loft. The contractor would be in touch to carry out a gas fire inspection.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 27 November 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she had to have the boiler fixed at her own expense as the contactor “messed me around for 6 weeks and did not repair correctly”. She also said that the contractor did not carry out the fire check correctly and capped off her gas fire.
On 30 November 2020 the landlord advised the resident that an appointment had been made to attend the gas fire on 4 December 2020. The resident responded immediately saying she would not be available as she would be at work.
On the same day the resident forwarded her gas engineer invoice from the work completed on 26 October 2020. The total cost was £239.35 (including VAT).
On 1 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it would not escalate her complaint because the stage one response addressed the complaint in full; it was factually accurate and it followed the complaints process. The landlord said that the repair had been completed on 20 October 2020. It acknowledged this took too long and a right to repair payment was offered of £32. It said it would not pay for the work carried out on 26 October 2020 because the heating was left working on its previous visit. Turning to the gas fire, the landlord said that the gas contractor had followed the correct process when carrying out their checks and had capped off the gas fire because they could not access the loft to check the flue due to an infestation.
On the following day, in an internal email the contractor confirmed the missed appointment of 23 October 2020 to the landlord.
On 4 December 2020 the contractor attended and the resident’s daughter was at home to let them in. They reinstated the gas fire.
On 10 December 2020 the resident told the landlord that she thought she could smell gas since the work to the gas fire had been done. She asked to whom she should report this. Later that day, she told the landlord she had had “a large gas leak” and that Cadent had attended and made the property safe.
The report from Cadent (a regional gas distributor) noted that “gas fire recently reconnected. Pipe to fire leaking. 5mbar drop. Capped fire. RIDDOR reported. GSE [gas service engineer] required to reconnect and test”. The report noted that the appliance had been categorised as immediately dangerous, disconnected and labelled “Danger Do Not Use”. It also noted that the incident had been reported to the HSE under RIDDOR 11(2) – a dangerous gas fitting (paragraph 6).
On 26 February 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to review its complaint response to the resident and escalate her complaint to the next stage. In a second email to the landlord that day we said that the reason the resident had contacted this Service was a result of the gas leak on 10 December 2020.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord told the Ombudsman that it had been unable to investigate the gas leak as the resident would not allow its gas contractor access.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It was agreed that the decision made at stage one regarding the heating repair had been based on inaccurate information and there had been an appointment booked for 23 November 2020 (this should read 23 October 2020) which its contractor had cancelled. It apologised for that oversight.
2. It had agreed to reimburse the full cost of the repair of £240 that the resident had arranged with her own contractor. This had been done on 14 December 2020.
3. It also offered a right to repair payment of £50 and an additional £100 to apologise for failing to provide written confirmation and for its oversight of the missed appointment.
4. Turning to the gas fire check, an inspection was carried out on 20 October 2020. A smoke test was carried out and the appliance had failed this test which resulted in it being capped off and a warning noticed issued.
5. Following the resident’s complaint that the service had not been carried out correctly. A second contractor investigated the gas fire on 3 November 2020 and found it was satisfactory and it passed the smoke test. It was noted that the chimney in the roof could not be inspected as per the resident’s request.
6. It said the first contractor had followed the process by capping the gas fire as it had failed the smoke test and was not the primary heating source within the property. The landlord suggested that the smoke test might have been failed due to the weather conditions and high winds.
7. The landlord said it appreciated this matter had caused the resident inconvenience; however, it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint because its contractor had acted on their findings and had taken the necessary safety precautions.
8. It noted the resident wanted to defer the remedial works to the gas fire for a few months.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord explained to the resident that the gas leak had not formed part of the formal complaint response. It asked if she was ready for it to look at the capped gas fire. Later that month the landlord said that, if the resident did not want its contractor to look at the gas fire, then she could arrange for a quote from a contractor of her choice and it could potentially make payment direct to the contractor of her choice. The landlord also said that servicing of gas appliances would be carried out by its gas contractor in the future but it was happy to arrange for its third-party auditor to attend the day after to inspect any works done to provide assurance that the works had been completed safely and in line with current regulations.
On 6 April 2021 Cadent wrote to the resident. It said on the evening of 10 December 2020, it had attended in connection with a suspected internal gas escape at the property and found a pressure drop on a recently reconnected gas fire. The engineer disconnected the fire and capped the pipework. It noted “the pipework was then retested and all confirmed as okay and RIDDOR reported”.
On the same day the landlord told the resident that her original complaint was closed on 26 November 2020 and at that time Cadent had not been involved so would not be part of the stage two review. It said it understood from a conversation she had had with it on 6 April 2021 that she wanted to wait a few months before looking at the gas fire again. It asked her to let it know when she was happy for this to happen.
On 15 April 2021 the landlord told the resident that, as part of any investigation, its contractor’s health and safety team would need to attend to undertake an investigation on their engineer’s work. It asked if she would allow this and said, if not, it could make arrangements for the gas fire to be removed and potentially an additional radiator be installed. In a further email of 18 May 2021, the landlord said that if the resident would prefer to use her own contractor to undertake these works to submit a quote for review.
On 3 September 2021 the landlord told the resident that, as she had not allowed its contractors access to undertake a complete investigation of the incident of 10 December 2020, it could not agree with her comments on the safety of her and her family. It “strongly advised” that she allowed access for the gas safety check by its contractor.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord told the resident that it could not comment on any potential risks which arose on 10 December 2020 until all parties had had a change to undertake a complete investigation. It explained that this is something the HSE would have requested as part of any RIDDOR event, but unfortunately this is something that she had not allowed to happen.
On 15 September 2021 Cadent confirmed that a referral had been made to the HSE in respect of the incident on 10 December 2020.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she wanted a “reputable” gas contractor to attend and for the landlord to address the missing heat source given the gas fire had been capped. She added that the landlord’s gas contractor “almost cost our lives”.

Assessment and findings

This report has focussed on the landlord’s response to the initial problem with the boiler, the capping of the gas fire and subsequent gas leak. The matter of the gas leak has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and would usually fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, the landlord was made aware of this complaint and did not take action to respond to it. The Ombudsman considers this to be a complaint handling failure (see paragraph 63) and has therefore considered this matter in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme. This says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Handling of a request for repairs to the boiler

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the boiler was not appropriate. At the repair visit of 26 September 2020, the gas contractor identified that a replacement part was required. However, despite chasing by the resident, there was no follow-up appointment booked for almost a month; the evidence suggests there were then two missed appointments on 23 and 24 October 2020. The resident was therefore without fully working central heating for about a month in total. While the landlord apologised in its stage one complaint response, it has offered no explanation of why there was such a delay. The response by the landlord here was not appropriate because it did not act within its own repairs policy by resolving the boiler within 21 days (paragraph 3).
While the evidence suggests that a part was replaced on 20 October 2020, the resident disputed that. While the landlord offered no explanation as to why the part was not seemingly replaced, as stated by its contractor, the landlord acted reasonably in reimbursing the cost the resident incurred by using her own contractor.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In its final response the landlord offered the resident £50 for the delay, which was the maximum payable under the right to repair (paragraph 5) as well as £100 for the inconvenience caused acknowledging one missed appointment (which it wrongly stated occurred on 23 November, rather than 23 October 2020) and paid the resident’s contractor’s costs.
There was a considerable impact on the resident – not only did she and her daughter live without central heating for about a month; there was a second missed repair appointment and, ultimately, the resident had to organise her own repair which was the landlord’s responsibility. However, the compensation offered by the landlord reflects that impact. It is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure to address repairs in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
In its complaint handling, the landlord has offered no explanation for the delay in carrying out the repair or why the appointment of 20 October 2020 did not resolve matters. This is understandably having an impact on the resident’s confidence in the contractor and an explanation of what went wrong may help to alleviate her concerns. An order has therefore been made, below.

Handling of a gas fire check and subsequent decision to cap the fire

The landlord’s handling of the gas fire check was appropriate. It was reasonable for the gas engineer to cap the fire on 20 October 2020 as it had failed the flue flow test. It re-tested the fire on 3 November 2020 and it was found to be safe. The landlord has an obligation to keep its gas installations in proper working order. The test and re-testing by the contractor was appropriate to ensure that the gas fire was working correctly.

Response to report of a gas leak on 10 December 2020

The gas fire was reinstated on 4 December 2020. Several days later the resident reported she could smell gas; Cadent attended and found there had been a gas leak. The gas fire was re-capped that day and remains capped.
The landlord has been unable to investigate the gas leak as the resident would not give access. It is evident that delays and the poor service given by the gas contractor means that her confidence in them was diminished. In April 2021 the landlord suggested that the resident could arrange a quote to look at the gas fire from her own contractor. However, given the seriousness of the incident on 10 December 2020 it was for the landlord to take responsibility for this matter, rather than put that onus on the resident. It should have arranged for an independent gas contractor to investigate and report back on the gas leak. Had it done so, this matter would likely have been resolved sooner. As it is, the resident has been living with uncertainty about what happened when the gas fire was reinstated for some fifteen months.
The evidence demonstrated that there was a gas leak on 10 December 2020 which suggests that there was a failure by the contractor in reconnecting the gas fire. An investigation is necessary to feedback learning to the contractor and that, along with the outcome of the referral to the HSE (which the Ombudsman has not seen), is likely bring some closure to the resident. An order has therefore been made, below to ensure the landlord now takes robust action to resolve this issue.
The failure by the landlord to take positive steps to resolve this matter has meant that the resident has been without a gas fire – a source of heat in the living room – since 10 December 2020. The resident has also been living with uncertainty about what happened when the gas fire was reinstated for some fifteen months.
The landlord’s offer of 6 April 2021 to double-check the work of its gas contractor was reasonable to give reassurance to the resident and an order has been made, below, to ensure that this takes place going forward.
The impact on the resident has been significant. The lack of a gas fire to heat the living room for two winters as well as uncertainty about how the gas leak itself came about has evidently caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. In this case the sum of £20 a month would be proportionate for the lack of a gas fire over the winter months from December 2020 to March 2022, a total of £180.
Further redress of £150 is appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from December 2020 to date – a period of some fifteen months.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint initiated on 24 October 2020 was appropriate. It had discretion not to escalate the complaint to stage two if it decided that such an escalation was unsuitable and provided a further written response rather than escalating, which was reasonable.
However, the following day, the landlord became aware of a missed appointment by its contractor. It did not take immediate action to try to resolve this matter in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute principle of “put things right”. Action to resolve this was not taken until after the Ombudsman’s intervention asking the landlord to escalate to stage two. This delay was not reasonable and was not fair to the resident. When the landlord became aware of its error in its letter of 1 December 2020, it should have re-opened the complaint and offered redress at stage two, rather than wait for the Ombudsman’s intervention.
In February 2021 the landlord became aware of the complaint from the resident about the gas leak through contact from the Ombudsman. This issue did not form part of the original complaint and therefore under its complaints policy it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have dealt with it separately. However, it did not. It was not appropriate for the landlord to disregard the resident’s complaint about the gas leak.
The impact of that is that this matter has been outstanding as a complaint for over one year. This has evidently caused the resident distress and inconvenience and meant she had to approach this Service to resolve matters. It also meant that the landlord missed out on the opportunity to improve the tenant/landlord relationship and to investigate and respond to the issue while it was recent and reliable evidence available. Financial compensation of £120 is appropriate here for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to investigate the gas leak when it came to its attention and for its failure to re-open the complaint at stage two when it became aware that there had been a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to report of a gas leak on 10 December 2020
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of a request for repairs to the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a gas fire check and subsequent decision to cap the fire.

Reasons

There was a delay by the landlord in repairing the boiler and the work undertaken by the contractor did not resolve matters. The landlord has offered to reimburse the resident’s costs and offered redress of £150 which was a proportionate way to put things right.
The landlord acted appropriately by capping the gas fire when it failed the flue test.
The landlord did not act reasonably to the report of a gas leak. It should have engaged an independent gas company to investigate what had happened and to establish whether or not the gas fire was safe to be used again.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It failed to reopen the complaint at stage two when it was clear there had been a service failure and also failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the gas leak.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident totalling £450 made up of:
  1. £180 for the impact of having no gas fire.
  2. £150 for the distress and convenience caused by the failure to take action to investigate the gas leak.
  3. £120 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the complaint handling failure identified in this report.
3. Investigate the two missed appointments on 23 and 24 October 2020 and also the actions of the gas contractor on 20 October 2020 to establish why the boiler repair was not resolved that day.
4. Ensure that, going forward, a third-party auditor inspected any work its gas contractor does at the property (in line with its offer of 6 April 2021).
5. Engage a suitably qualified, independent gas safety consultant to investigate the gas leak on 10 December 2020 in order to establish what happened, what went wrong and if there are any service improvements the landlord needs to make to prevent a similar situation happening in future.
6. This investigation should also reach a view on whether the gas fire is viable going forward. If not, the landlord should decide whether to replace it or, if a decision is taken to remove it, to adjust the number of radiators in the room to increase the heat sources in the room.
7. Within eight weeks the landlord shall:
  1. Share a summary of the findings of the independent investigation along with the outcome from the HSE and give details of any recommended actions it will be taking with both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the compensation it previously offered amounting to £150 and reimburse her contractor’s costs of £240 (if it has not done so already).