Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Midland Heart Limited (202402307)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402307

Midland Heart Limited

30 September 2025

 

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. A gas leak.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated April 2022. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. On 14 April 2023 the energy supplier came to replace the gas meter at the property. Whilst carrying out the replacement they identified a gas leak. The energy supplier isolated the gas supply and the resident notified the landlord of the leak.
  3. The landlord instructed a contractor who attended the same day. They resolved the gas leak at the initial visit. They re-tested for leaks when they had completed works and no further leaks were identified.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the gas leak and raised a complaint on 31 August 2023. She said that she had experienced increased energy bills due to the leak.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 September 2023. It said:
    1. On receiving notification of a gas leak at the property it had instructed contractors to attend as an emergency.
    2. The contractor attended the same day. It identified and resolved the cause of the leak in the visit.
    3. It confirmed that the annual gas safety check of the property was completed on 19 December 2022 and no faults or gas leaks were detected.
    4. That the resident would need to submit evidence of increased energy bills for it to review and see if it could award a contribution.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord numerous times between September 2023 and May 2024 to say she was unhappy with the response and wanted to escalate the complaint. It acknowledged the escalation request on 8 May 2024. When the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident, she told it that her complaint was about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the gas leak.
    2. Her increased energy costs because of the leak.
    3. The landlord not escalating her complaint in September 2023.
    4. The health and wellbeing impact on her family from the gas leak.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 June 2024. It said:
    1. It explained the action it had taken after receiving the report of the leak and confirmed it resolved the issue the same day.
    2. It confirmed that a gas safety check was completed on 18 March 2022 prior to the resident moving in, which was recorded as satisfactory. Subsequent gas safety inspections were carried out on 25 January 2023 and 22 November 2023, both had a ‘pass’ outcome.
    3. It had made an admin error in the stage 1 response. It had said the gas safety check was completed on 19 December 2022 but it was not completed until 25 January 2023. It apologised for this and said it had addressed it with its staff.
    4. It acknowledged that the resident remained concerned that her property may not be safe. To reassure the resident that the gas installations in the property were safe to use, it offered to complete an independent gas inspection of the property.
    5. It found no service failure in its handling of the gas leak.
    6. It had reviewed the energy bills the resident had supplied and found an increased cost of £240 in the year with the gas leak. It made a goodwill gesture payment of £240 to the resident for her energy bills.
    7. It had identified that it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in September 2023. It apologised, said this was due to staffing limitations and awarded the resident £250 for this.
    8. Its investigation had shown that it could have communicated better with the resident through the complaints process. It apologised for this and said it would use the resident’s feedback to improve its service going forward. It awarded £150 compensation for poor communication.
    9. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s health concerns. It advised that the resident could pursue a personal injury claim if she believed her health or wellbeing had been adversely affected by property issues.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service. The resident said:
    1. The landlord had not fully explained or acknowledged the potential health risk of the gas leak on her and her family and had focused on the leak being at 4.5 millibars and not the 10.5 millibars first identified.
    2. She believed the gas safety checks carried out were only basic and would not have identified leaks.
    3. Her and her children were at risk of harm in the property as they may be exposed to further gas leaks.
    4. The landlord had not properly acknowledged her health concerns. She said she was experiencing light headedness, breathlessness and felt weak. These symptoms were worse at home.
    5. She would like the landlord to respond to her and identify what implications a 10.5 millibar leak could have had on her and her children. She wanted parts of the response retracting that she felt were false and for the landlord to issue a sincere apology for the gas leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the gas leak may have had on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. We do not question this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The courts are better suited to handle this issue as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. 
  2. In the stage 2 response the landlord references damp and mould and door repair issues. The resident confirmed that a separate complaint has been through the landlord’s complaint procedure in relation to the damp and mould and the matter is now resolved. The resident has not requested that either issue be investigated by this Service. For this reason, our investigation focuses on the gas leak and complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of a gas leak

  1. The resident felt that the landlord had not properly acknowledged the gas leak was recorded at 10.5 millibars. She felt it has focused on the later reading of 4.5 millibars. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish the severity of the gas leak. Our role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to such a leak.
  2. The energy supplier’s engineer identified a gas leak at the property on 14 April 2023. The resident informed the landlord of the gas leak and it sent a contractor out the same day. The contractor identified the cause of the leak as coming from an unused cooker point. It removed the cooker point and replaced it with a cap on the pipework. The meter was re-tested and no further leaks were found. This is an appropriate response and in line with its repairs policy that says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours.
  3. The resident remained concerned that her property was unsafe and that there may be new gas leaks that have not been identified. In its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and offered to complete an independent gas inspection of the property to reassure her that the gas installations in her property were safe to use. This was reasonable. It shows that it has considered the resident’s concerns and offered actions that are outside of its usual obligations to alleviate them.
  4. The resident said her energy costs had increased because of the gas leak. She supplied the landlord with copies of her energy bills for the year of the gas leak and the year after. The landlord reviewed them and found an increased cost of £240 in the year with the gas leak. It said this could be due to other factors such as a colder winter or the impact of a smart meter being installed which is a reasonable suggestion to make. However, it made a goodwill gesture payment of £240 to the resident for her energy bills. This action was reasonable. It showed the landlord considered its compensation policy, that indicates it will consider compensation payments in cases where energy bills have increased due to a repair issue.
  5. Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord handled the reports of a gas leak in line with its obligations. It attended on the same day, identified and repaired the cause of the leak. There have been no further reports of gas leaks. It has compensated the resident for her additional energy costs and offered to complete an independent gas inspection to alleviate the resident’s concerns. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the gas leak.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the complaint as it failed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 when she requested in September 2023. Its policy says it will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. It did not escalate the complaint until 8 May 2024. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it failed to escalate the complaint when it should and awarded the resident £250 compensation. This was reasonable and shows that the landlord considered its compensation policy. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with its policy for when it identifies a moderate failing.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 8 May 2024. According to its policy it was due to respond by 5 June 2024. On that day the landlord requested an extension to the 17 June 2024 to provide the response. It did not provide the stage 2 response until 21 June 2024, some 4 days after the agreed extension date. It did not explain in the response the reason it was late. However, the delay was not significant and although the resident may have been frustrated, it is not evident that it caused significant detriment.
  3. The landlord also acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been poor through the complaints process. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience and awarded £150 in compensation. This action is reasonable and shows that the landlord considered its compensation policy. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with its policy for when it identifies a moderate failing.
  4. When a landlord acknowledges failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress appropriately addressed the issue and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply the Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to escalate the complaint and that its communication was poor. It has apologised and offered a total of £400 in compensation. This amount is in line with its own compensation policy. This was reasonable and shows that it has had regard for the Dispute Resolution Principles when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s view, the steps the landlord has taken and the compensation it has offered are overall proportionate to the identified failings, and we find they amount to reasonable redress. The landlord shows it sought to consider how its failings would have impacted the resident and sought to offer proportionate compensation in line with its policy. There would have been a finding of service failure had the landlord not identified its failings and taken appropriate action to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a gas leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £240 compensation it awarded at stage 2 for the increased energy costs if it has not done so already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £400 compensation it awarded at stage 2 for failure to escalate the complaint and poor communication if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.