Tower Hamlets Homes (202213177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213177

Tower Hamlets Homes

17 January 2023

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 a gas safety check at the resident’s property and errors in its complaint responses.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The complaint was raised by the resident and, at times, by his representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and his representative as ‘the resident’.
3. On 15 July, the landlord wrote to the resident advising him that an appointment to complete a gas safety check had been scheduled for 21 July 2022. A further letter was sent on 21 July 2022, advising that a new appointment was scheduled for 28 July 2022 as the gas safety check had not been completed. A third letter was sent to the resident on 28 July 2022, advising him that due to the failure to provide access for the landlord to conduct the gas safety check, it had referred the matter to its legal team and urged the resident to make contact to arrange an appointment.
4. The resident initially raised a complaint on 30 July 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the letters sent by the landlord. He advised that he had contacted the landlord on 20 July 2022 following receipt of a text message notifying him of an appointment the following day and rescheduled the appointment for 3 August 2022 as members of his family had contracted COVID-19. He had then received a text message confirming the appointment details. He added that he had spoken to a staff member on 21 July 2022 following receipt of a letter and was advised to ignore the new scheduled appointment date of 28 July 2022. He also said that he was not informed via text or letter of an appointment on 15 July 2022 as indicated in the most recent letter. He expressed dissatisfaction that he had been threatened with legal action when he had made contact on several occasions and booked an appointment for 3 August 2022. He added that the inconsistent administration was causing undue stress. The resident later escalated his complaint as he was dissatisfied with inconsistencies in the landlord’s stage one complaint response; namely with regard to the date of the initial appointment and an alleged request for compensation he had not made.
5. The evidence shows that the gas safety check was completed on 4 August 2022. Operatives had attended on 3 August 2022; however, the caretaker of the building had not been present to allow access to the gas meter at the time.
6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that the letters were automated, and were sent regardless of appointment alterations to emphasise the importance of the gas safety check and ensure that the certificate did not expire to ensure its resident’s safety. It added that in line with the process it had with its contractors, the third letter was sent automatically and the reference to 15 July 2022 was when the initial communication had been sent. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and ensured that it would work with its contractors to review the wording of the letters. It later apologised that the resident had not received a letter or text message informing him of the appointment scheduled for 20 July 2022, but confirmed that these had been sent. It also apologised for the errors in its stage one complaint response. It acknowledged that it had given an incorrect initial appointment date of 30 July 2022 instead of 20 July 2022, stated that a carbon monoxide alarm had been replaced when it had been installed for the first-time following government guidance, and that it had referred to the resident’s request for compensation when he had not requested this.
7. The resident referred his complaint to this service as he remained dissatisfied that the landlord’s complaint response, whilst acknowledging mistakes, had stated that he had not received a text message when he had previously informed it that he had received this. He sought an apology from the landlord and for the mistake to be corrected. Following contact from this service, the landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2021 and acknowledged its mistake. It apologised for the genuine error and for any upset caused.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord has a legal obligation under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to ensure that the gas supply and appliances in a property are in a safe condition, are fitted or repaired by a Gas Safe registered engineer and have a gas safety check every 12 months by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
9. The landlord’s gas safety procedure states that the process for gaining access for the annual gas safety check would begin in the tenth month following the previous certificate. A resident should be provided with an appointment letter seven days prior to the appointment. If a resident is unable to provide access, a second appointment letter would be sent with seven days’ notice of the appointment date and time. Following this, the matter would be passed to the landlord’s administration team who would attempt to gain access to the property by contacting the resident. When access has not been successful and the 10-month period since the last gas safety check for an individual property has expired, details are forwarded to the landlord’s legal service along with instructions to commence appropriate legal action.
10. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident had called on 20 July 2022 to rebook the gas safety inspection appointment for 3 August 2022. This was because his family had contracted COVID-19 and could not allow access for the appointment. The landlord’s automated process then sent two further letters on 21 advising the resident that a further appointment was scheduled for 28 July 2022, and another on 28 July 2022 advising that legal proceedings were due to commence due to the resident’s failure to provide access to the landlord respectively.
11. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the resident’s concerns by contacting its gas contractors and confirming the process in place. It also took reasonable steps to explain its position to the resident, confirming that the process was automated to ensure that the gas safety certificate for the property did not expire and emphasise the importance of having the check completed to its residents.
12. The landlord’s system for automated booking of missed appointments is appropriate given that it has a legal obligation to carry out gas inspections within a certain timeframe. Given, however, that the resident did not simply cancel his appointment, but he booked another within the timeframe, the landlord’s automated system caused confusion by erroneously stating an appointment on a different date had been booked. While its staff provided assistance in explaining he should ignore this letter, its subsequent letter threatening legal action would have caused distress for the resident. It would not be reasonable for the resident to assume such a letter was also erroneous, given the threat of legal action, and so the resident had to expend further time and trouble in clarifying if it was genuine or automated.
13. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s automated system is responsible for causing unreasonable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The system should be robust enough to account for instances where a new appointment has been booked within an appropriate timeframe, without sending erroneous additional letters. Additionally, given that this was not set up at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord could have been proactive in informing the resident prior to the letters being issued that he would receive these letters, including the threat of legal action, and that he could ignore them. It did not do this, however, which instead led the resident to expend time and trouble in chasing an explanation.
14. In its formal responses, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for any inconvenience caused by its automated process. It also demonstrated that it had taken steps of learning from the complaint by confirming that it would work with its contractors to review the wording of the letters which was appropriate in the circumstances.
15. The resident escalated his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the errors made by the landlord it its stage one complaint response. Namely that it had said that the first appointment date was 30 July 2022, it had advised that a carbon monoxide alarm had been replaced when this was not the case and that it had advised that he was seeking compensation when this was not the case. The landlord acted appropriately by utilising its stage two complaint response to review its stage one complaint response and apologising to the resident for any inconsistencies. It also took steps to confirm its position regarding each error and put right any confusion that had arisen. The landlord also demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint, confirming that its staff had been reminded of the importance of checking information before it is provided to residents.
16. The resident referred his complaint to this service as he remained dissatisfied that there was a further error in the landlord’s stage two complaint response in that it had stated that he had not received a text message on 20 July 2022 when he had. As this information was included within the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured its response was accurate, especially given the context of its stage two complaint response. The additional error at stage two was likely to have caused some frustration for the resident and the landlord acted appropriately by emailing the resident on 9 November 2021 to apologise for the genuine error. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had been made aware of this error prior to communication from this service and it therefore did not have the opportunity to acknowledge and apologise for the error at an earlier date.
17. The Ombudsman acknowledges that on occasion, mistakes can occur and may not necessarily constitute a service failure. However, the repeated provision of incorrect information can cause confusion and distrust which may affect the landlord/tenant relationship over time. As such, it is important for landlords to ensure that the correct information is provided to residents.
18. Whilst it is not disputed that there were several inconsistencies in the landlord’s complaint responses and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that its complaint responses were accurate, these errors did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint itself and the landlord’s apology for any inconvenience caused alongside identified points of learning is considered proportionate in recognition of the impact on the resident in this case.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of a gas safety check at the resident’s property and errors in its complaint responses, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to improve its automated system to account for rebooked appointments, or otherwise ensure that residents are informed that they may still receive automatically generated letters when they rearrange a gas safety inspection appointment. The landlord may also consider confirming, within any automatically generated letters, that the communication may be disregarded when an agreement has been put in place.
21. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training to ensure that complaint handlers are aware of the importance of accuracy to prevent any confusion or concern to residents and that quality checks are performed to ensure accuracy where appropriate.