Notting Hill Genesis (202012921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012921

Notting Hill Genesis

21 October 2021

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:
1. Handling of the gas safety check.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of heating and hot water following the annual gas service in 2020.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of heating and hot water following the annual gas service in 2020.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.
The evidence shows that, while this issue was brought as a complaint to the landlord, it was dealt with as an informal complaint by the contract manager of the new gas contractor on 25 July 2020. The matter was not subsequently progressed by the resident to a formal complaint. Accordingly, as this matter has not completed the landlord’s formal complaint procedure, it falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check and its complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2005. The property is a one-bedroom self-contained flat.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installations provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including gas pipes, fitted fires and central heating installations.
The landlord is required to carry out a gas safety check every year. The landlord’s website explains that the law requires the gas safety checks to be completed before the expiry date of the previous certificate. Therefore, its contractors will contact the resident up to nine weeks before the expiry date of the current safety check in writing about an appointment and the resident should contact them, if this appointment is not convenient. If they are unable to gain access to the property to complete the check and/or get in contact with the resident, they will send another appointment letter and try and gain access at a later date. If they are unable to gain access at a second appointment and when the current gas safety certificate reaches the four to five week before expiry mark, the property will be referred back to the landlord who will attempt to contact the resident by phone, email and letter. If a check is unable to be carried out before the safety certificate has expired, the landlord will seek a notice seeking possession.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. Prior to stage one it tries to resolve matters with a “quick fix” such as booking a repair. If such resolution is not possible, it aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and within twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250 where the resident experiences distress or inconvenience following a service failure. In some circumstances, such as where there have been multiple service failures, or exceptional hardship, the landlord can offer higher levels of compensation, if agreed by a senior manager.
The policy says that an appointment was missed by a contractor at no fault of the resident’s, it will pay compensation of £30 for a missed appointment.

Summary of events

The gas contractor’s records of contact with the resident were largely not available, instead, this investigation has relied upon information contained in emails and complaint records as evidence of the action taken. It is not disputed that on 1 June 2019 the landlord’s gas contractor (the contractor) wrote to the resident with a notice of a gas safety check on 11 June 2019. The letter said that, if that appointment was inconvenient, he should telephone to make another appointment.
On 11 June 2019 the contractors were unable to attend due to emergency leave.
On 1 July the gas contractor wrote to the resident with a notice of a gas safety check on 11 July 2019. No access was given on that day or 19 July 2019; the resident advised he was away until 25 August 2019.
On 29 July, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 16 August 2019 the contractors tried, but did not gain access to the property.
On 15 August 2019 a legal caseworker who worked for the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that the gas contractor urgently required access to the property to carry out the annual service and gas safety check, as the certificate had now expired. She said that engineers had attended the property after appointment letters had been sent; however, access had not been provided and added that legal warning letters had also been sent. The caseworker urged the resident to book an urgent appointment with the contractor warning that the next stage was a court injunction which would result in his locks being changed and court costs of up to £2,000 being recharged back to him.
The gas safety check was carried out on 23 August 2019.
The landlord received a complaint from the resident on 11 September 2019 in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with its email of 15 August 2019 which he perceived as “threatening”.
Six months later, on 13 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. The annual gas check was successfully completed on 23 August 2019, which was 13 days after the expiry of the gas certificate.
2. The contractor had tried to gain access unsuccessfully on a number of occasions prior to that date and, while he had advised the housing team that he was on holiday, he had not given a return date. As a result, alternative arrangements for access could not be arranged.
3. It explained that, by law, it was required to carry out the gas safety check every year and, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident was required to provide access when sufficient notice was provided. It had exhausted all options to make contact with him, which included the email received from the legal caseworker, which was within its process as standard practice.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint emphasising that it took the matter of gas safety seriously and the annual gas check was not only compulsory and that it was also crucial that it was completed in a timely manner for the resident’s health and safety.
On 17 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing his disappointment with its response.
Ten months later, on 9 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by how it had communicated with the resident leading up to the annual gas safety check in 2019. The landlord said it took the safety of all its residents very seriously and gas safety formed part of that.
2. If access for an annual gas safety check has not been gained four weeks prior to the expiry date, the property is then referred to the landlord and a legal warning letter was issued.
3. It gave the chronology of events that led to the email warning sent to the resident on 15 August 2019 which said that legal action might be taken against him. The landlord apologised for any distress caused due to the wording within this email but explained the reason for the stern wording was that the gas safety certificate had already expired on 10 August 2019.
4. It believed that there had been a breakdown in communication between it and the gas contractor in relation to the resident’s return date of 25 August 2019 and apologised for that. The landlord added that it was evident the gas contractor caused delay with the annual gas check being completed by failing to attend the first confirmed appointment. The landlord offered £30 by way of apology for any inconvenience caused due to the gas contractor’s failed appointment (on 11 June 2019).
5. The landlord acknowledged the delay in sending out its stage one response saying it was “not acceptable” to wait over five months for a complaint response. It also apologised for the errors in this response and noted that the resident had provided the contractor with a date when he would return from holiday when he had spoken to them on 19 July 2020, but that was not communicated to the landlord. It acknowledged that, although it was aware the resident remained unhappy with the stage one complaint response, it was not escalated to a manager to respond to at stage two. The landlord explained that its staff member who dealt with his complaint had since left.
6. The landlord said it understood the delay to the complaint would have also caused and inconvenience. It apologised for the complaint handling delays. It offered £100 for the delay at stage one and a further £100 for the delay at stage two. (Total compensation offered was £230.)
7. The landlord said that it believed the gas contractor could have been more efficient with how they dealt with the resident’s annual gas safety check in 2019. It said it had highlighted these failures with them and had changed contractors for the resident’s property. It added it had recently changed its complaints database; hired a new member of staff to deal with its heating and hot water complaints; introduced a new complaints procedure; and would provide further training to its contractors and staff. It said it was confident these changes would prevent similar issues happening to other residents in the future.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 7 June 2021 the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered the resident a further £120 in compensation saying it believed it ought to have responded to him sooner and kept him regularly updated, especially due to the fact it delayed its response at stage one by five months. It confirmed the compensation offered was £350.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the gas safety check.

The landlord’s handling of the gas safety check in 2019 was not appropriate. While it acted in line with its published procedures in taking action to secure an appointment in advance of the expiry of the gas safety certificate including the warning about legal action (paragraph 12), had there been effective communication between the landlord and the contractor such action would not have been required and an appointment made for when the resident returned from his holiday.
The landlord acknowledged this breakdown in communication in the stage two complaint response (paragraph 18.d) as well as the missed an appointment on 11 June 2019. In order to remedy matters, the landlord changed the contractor for the property, apologised and paid compensation of £30 for the missed appointment, in line with its compensation policy (paragraph 7).
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 complainant’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.
There would have been some impact on the resident due to the breakdown in communication between the landlord and the contractor. The resident was likely unaware of this as he was on holiday at the time. It is not clear when he received the landlord’s email to him warning of potential legal action; however, the duration of this impact was short and therefore the apology offered by the landlord was adequate redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate as there were excessive delays at stage one of 5 months and an almost ten-month delay at stage two. The landlord has apologised for those delays acknowledging that the delay in providing the stage one response was not acceptable. It also explained the delay in issuing the stage two response (paragraph 18.e).
The landlord has offered compensation amounting to £320 for the inconvenience and distress in issuing the complaint responses. It also took steps to try to stop similar failings happening again in the future including hiring new complaints staff and providing training (paragraph 18.g).
It is evident that these complaint handling failures caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord reflects the impact on the resident over a considerable amount of time. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when there is evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been delays in complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord has made redress to the complainant which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. It also was proactive in introducing steps to prevent the same mistakes happening again which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles – learning from outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints with respect to:
1. Handling of the gas safety check.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

For both aspects of the complaint the landlord has acknowledged its failings, taken steps to prevent mistakes happening again in the future and offered redress which is proportionate to the failures identified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the sum of £350, if it has not done so already.