Reading Borough Council (202224195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224195

Reading Borough Council

22 February 2024

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 response to reports of a protruding gas pipe. 

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom home. She resides in the property with her partner and 3 young children.
3. The resident took the property as part of a mutual exchange on 4 July 2022. The resident reported a number of issues on first taking the property. She later reported a protruding gas pipe to the landlord. It is unclear what date this was, although internal emails from 22 August 2022 state that the landlord had checked the pipe, and it did not feel it could take any further action. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2022 to advise that 2 of her children had been injured on the pipe.
4. The landlord did not remove the pipe as it stated it was capped and therefore safe. It stated that the resident was responsible for removing the pipe work. The resident made a formal complaint on 2 November 2022. She advised that her 1-year-old had fallen on the pipe and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance. The landlord removed the pipe on 3 November 2022.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 11 November 2022. In relation to the pipe, it advised that it had left the pipe capped and safe. It stated that it did not remove this type of pipe as this could be difficult and costly, and it was not a requirement, provided the pipe was left safe. It stated the resident had used a table before to keep the pipe safe, and that the accident had happened once the resident removed the table. The landlord partially upheld the complaint in relation to other issues with the mutual exchange, including a number of repairs that needed to be done. It advised it had since changed the mutual exchange process, including completing safety checks closer to the move in date.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 17 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022. It reiterated that it had changed some of its mutual exchange procedures. It also advised it was sorry to hear of the injury and that the matter was now being dealt with through an insurance claim.
7. The Ombudsman has been informed by the resident that the insurance has since made a payment to the child who was injured. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. She feels the landlord has not demonstrated accountability or provided a suitable apology.

Assessment and findings

Scope.

8. The complaint was made following an injury to a child. This has subsequently been dealt with by an insurance claim. It is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to comment on the causation of any injury. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to appoint liability for any injury. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate the response to the request to remove the protruding pipe.

The landlord’s response to reports of a protruding gas pipe. 

9. It is unclear when the protruding pipe was first brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that it was not mentioned in the tenant inspection form, signed by the resident on 20 March 2022. It is also not mentioned on the tenant waiver form. The first evidence which specifically mentions the gas pipe was an internal email from the landlord on 22 August 2022. The landlord stated the pipe had been checked and as it was capped there was no more action it could take.
10. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email, also from 22 August 2022. The email mentioned that it had carried out a number of repairs, due to safety issues. The landlord indicated that it felt the resident was requesting excessive repairs. It advised it would finish the repairs that it started, but it would not do anymore unless there were health and safety issues. The landlord should assess each repair on its own merit and decide on each repair who is responsible. This should be guided by its policies and procedures, and the tenancy agreement. It was inappropriate to make a comment that it would not complete any further repairs, without assessing them individually.
11. When the resident reported that her children had been injured, the landlord should have taken action to assess the hazard and consider whether there was a health and safety issue. The landlord stated that the pipe was safe as it had been capped, but there was no assessment conducted on the possibility of the pipe being a hazard. The landlord placed responsibility on the resident to remove the hazard. As injury was mentioned, the landlord should have taken action and conduct a risk assessment. The landlord has not provided any risk assessments to the Ombudsman.
12. On 10 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord if it could take any other measures to make the pipe safe. This was a reasonable request from the resident. The landlord advised it would pass this to the relevant team. An internal email was sent on 12 September 2022 stating the pipe had already been assessed and referred to previous communications. All previous communications based the safety of the pipe on gas safety and not on the basis of it being a hazard which could cause injury. The landlord did not consider all possible risks.
13. The resident asked the landlord on 12 September 2022 to confirm that it considered the pipe to be safe. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this email. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide information to the resident. This was detrimental as there were safety concerns.
14. The landlord responded to the resident on 2 November 2022, after the resident had reported an injury to her child. The injury resulted in the child going to hospital. The landlord stated that the pipes were normally left as they were a “nightmare” to remove. It stated it would ask a gas supervisor to visit the property the next day to see if he could take action to make the pipe smaller or remove it. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry this inspection out when the concerns with the pipe were first reported. The landlord removed the pipe on 3 November 2022.
15. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses partially upheld the complaint. This was due to issues with the mutual exchange and not in relation to the concerns of the protruding pipe. The stage 1 complaint stated that the property was “sold as seen”. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman, that the landlord’s position was unreasonable as a mutual exchange does negate the landlord’s responsibility to respond when a potential hazard is reported to it.
16. It is positive that the landlord was able to take action to make the pipe safe. However, it is of concern that the landlord did not consider the full risk, until after a significant injury was reported. The landlord has failed to evidence that it fully considered the resident’s concerns. It has provided insufficient reason as to why it did not complete an assessment of the potential risk, or why it did not provide the resident with support in making the pipe safe. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a protruding pipe.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a protruding pipe.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an apology. The apology should reflect on the failures to fully assess the risk of the pipe based on all factors.
19. The landlord is ordered to pay £800 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience that its failure caused to the resident.
20. The landlord must provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of receiving this report.

Recommendations

21. The landlord should reflect on its approach to mutual exchanges and its language of “sold as seen”. It should satisfy itself that it appropriately responds to residents that report issues that pose a risk.