Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202008540)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008540

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

22 July 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 resident complained about the landlord’s response to his complaint that he had been left without heating and hot water for 18 months between 2016 – 2018.

Background and summary of events

Since 2011 the resident has lived in a one bedroom first floor flat which is owned and managed by the landlord. The property has gas central heating. The resident is a vulnerable adult and the landlord’s communication with him is generally made through his mother, who is also his representative in this complaint.
The resident has a gas meter at the property. Credit paid onto the meter pays for the gas supplied to the property and also for a daily standing charge levied by British Gas, which is deducted regardless of whether gas is being used or whether there is credit on the meter. The resident cannot access the gas supply if there is no credit on the meter.
The landlord is legally obliged to carry out annual gas safety inspections at the property and these are undertaken by its heating contractors. The landlord’s records indicate it has repeatedly encountered access issues when arranging its annual gas safety inspection at the property, although the reasons for this are disputed by the resident’s mother. While communication issues around this formed part of the complaint to the landlord, this aspect was not referred to the Ombudsman and so has not been included as part of this investigation.
Past events: In April 2015 it appears the landlord capped the resident’s gas supply during its annual gas safety inspection. It is unclear whether this was because it was unable to gain access or was unable to conduct safety checks on the boiler because the gas meter was in deficit and so there was no gas supply. [The landlord has said it was not made aware of the capping at the time.]
In August 2015 the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leaking radiator and found at that time the resident had heating and hot water. [It later found the meter company must have uncapped the supply when fitting a new meter.] The landlord also found the gas and electric to be in working order when it attended on 8 December 2015 to the resident’s report of a leaking boiler.
In March 2016, January 2017 and January 2018 the landlord completed its annual gas safety inspections, noting on each occasion that the boiler was in working order. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the inspections could not have been completed if the gas supply had been capped. It also told the Ombudsman that neither the resident nor his mother raised an issue of a lack of heating/hot water during those inspections.
Between June – December 2018 the resident’s mother raised with the landlord’s gas services manager her complaint that her son had been without heating for 18 months as his gas supply had been capped.
On 15 December 2018 the annual safety inspection was carried out. The contractors noted the although the resident thought his gas supply had been capped they had found it had not been capped, but the boiler had been switched off. They turned it back on.
On1 May 2019 the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to complain that her son had been without heating for over 18 months until December 2018. She asked again why he could have a gas bill of £300 when despite putting money in the meter he was still unable to get hot water. She also contacted British Gas to ask if it could waive the debt on the meter.
The landlord replied the same day to say its gas services manager would look into the issue and contact her directly. The landlord then reviewed its records and noted the gas had been capped at the April 2015 service but it was not alerted to this until August 2015 when the resident had reported a leak, and so considered he had been without heating/hot water for four months during that time.
The resident’s mother also raised her complaint directly with the landlord’s surveyor, saying she wanted her son compensated for having had no gas.
First stage 1 complaint: On 21 May 2019 the resident’s mother emailed the landlord’s complaints team to report that:
1. the landlord’s heating contractors had capped her son’s gas meter and he had been without heating and hot water for 18 months.
2. the engineer had later admitted he had got the wrong property and should not have capped the supply.
3. this left them unable to turn the boiler back on, despite its gas services manager explaining nothing was wrong it and the problem lay with British Gas.
4. She had unnecessarily paid a £250 call out fee to British Gas to inspect the meter who said the problem lay with the landlord.
5. She asked for reimbursement of the £250 call out fee; reimbursement of the £50 credit she had put on her son’s meter; and £2000 compensation as it had been “a very disturbing time for my son.”
The same day the landlord told the resident’s mother that its gas services manager would meet with her and respond to her complaint. In the meantime it said it had reviewed its records and on 24 January 2018 its gas services manager had found the boiler to be working but that the debt on the meter meant there was no heating or hot water and he had advised her son he would need to clear the debt in order to re-establish it.
At the end of May 2019, British Gas told the resident’s mother that it would not waive the debt on the meter, and both the landlord’s gas services manager and debt advisor then assisted her in her discussions with British Gas, although it seems to no avail. It did, however, also offer to make an application on her son’s behalf to the British Gas Energy Trust for help to clear the arrears but in July 2019 she indicated she wanted to delay doing so until later in the year. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that she ultimately did so. Nor has the Ombudsman seen evidence of a written response from the landlord to the resident’s complaint at that stage.
Further Stage 1 complaint: Between March – June 2020 the resident’s mother raised again with the landlord her complaint that her son had been without heating and hot water, for which she sought compensation. [The landlord had initially closed the complaint in March 2020 when it had been unable to discuss it with her, but agreed in June 2020 to reopen it.]
Stage 1 complaint response: On 8 June 2020 the landlord responded. In summary it explained:
1. The gas was capped during the gas service on 14 April 2015 because boiler tests could not be carried out as there was no credit on the meter.
2. The engineer had not capped the wrong property. He had undertaken the correct procedure.
3. To have the gas turned back on credit was required and then an appointment could be made to get the gas reinstated.
4. It had heard nothing from her son until he reported the leak from the boiler on 8 December 2015 to which it attended and he confirmed all gas and electric was in working order. As the meter had been replaced the gas must have been uncapped by the meter provider.
5. It apologised its heating contractors had not advised it that the gas had been capped; that this had been distressing for her son and it had failed to address this at the time.
6. That subsequent gas servicing in March 2016; January 2017; January 2018; and December 2018 left the boiler in working order.
7. In June 2019 it had responded to her complaint that she was unhappy about the charges which had accrued on the meter and on 11 June 2019 it met with her and British Gas to try and get the charges removed.
8. It offered the resident £50 for any upset caused and had noted the issues for future improvement of its services.
9. It apologised for a missed appointment by contractors for the current gas servicing for which it offered £10 compensation.
Stage 2 review: The resident was unhappy with the response, although did not explain why. On 17 June 2020 the landlord provided the outcome of its review of the complaint. In summary, it found:
1. It had made every effort to ensure the safety of gas services to the property over the last few years and that its apology and £60 compensation offer was appropriate for the inconvenience and distress caused.
2. It would offer a further £30 to compensate for the additional £30 credit she had had to put on the meter.
3. It had arranged for a different firm of heating contractors to conduct the imminent gas service and going forward would be happy to arrange for an alternative contractor.
4. It would learn from the complaint with respect to its failure to attend appointments and not communicating clearly enough.

Assessment and findings

The events in this case date back many years and the Ombudsman is necessarily limited to how far back it can go in its investigation of a case. That is because the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) under which the Ombudsman operates limits its consideration of a complaint to:
1. those matters which were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, normally six months of the matters arising (paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme).
2. and for those matters then to have been brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of them having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure (paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme).
Consequently, the Ombudsman will not be considering the complaint concerning the capping of the gas supply in April 2015. Although this was ultimately raised by the resident’s mother in her later complaint, it was not brought to the attention of the landlord or the Ombudsman within the timescales specified in the Scheme. As a result, it falls outside the Ombudsman’s remit for consideration.
The resident’s complaint, however, was not limited to this earlier period. Matters had progressed and in the latter half of 2018 the resident’s mother was again concerned that her son’s gas supply had been capped and it was this which culminated in her complaint in May 2019. In particular she was concerned that, despite being assured there was nothing wrong with the boiler, he had still not been able to get heating/hot water and that she wanted him compensated for an earlier 18 month period from 2016 – 2018 during which she considered he had had his gas supply capped. This complaint and the landlord’s response to it does fall within the Ombudsman’s remit.
That is because the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time allowed not only for an informal response, but also a two stage formal complaint procedure should the resident remained dissatisfied or if the resident or landlord considered the complaint better suited to a formal response. It also stated that formal responses should be in writing and for a record to be made of the resolution of an informal complaint.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the resolution of the complaint in 2019 or the basis on which it was closed, and that being the case considers it reasonable for the resident’s mother to have raised it again in March/June 2020. By which stage she still had yet to have both issues – the capping and her compensation request – formally responded to by the landlord. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s response to her complaint from May 2019 onwards.
It is clear the crux of the resident’s mother’s complaint concerned the capping of the gas supply which she considered had left her son without heating and hot water for a considerable period of time. But having reviewed the evidence on this point, it would appear that, aside from the four month period from April 2015 – August 2015, the supply had not been capped. It appears that any inability by her son to access the gas supply was down to the fact that the meter was not in credit, and the gas services manager had explained this to her son in January 2018.
In responding to the complaint in May/June 2019 the landlord sought initially to clarify for the resident’s mother that the issue lay with a meter deficit, not capping (as this was confined to short period in 2015). Importantly, despite the meter deficit not having been the result of a failure on its part, the landlord was also quick to offer its assistance in discussions with British Gas to try and get the debt waived, albeit unsuccessfully. Even then, the Ombudsman notes the landlord gave further assistance by offering to apply for a grant to help clear the debt. It is not known why the resident’s mother chose not to pursue this at that time or if she eventually did. But nevertheless, in offering to help even though it had established the problem was not the result of a failure on its part the Ombudsman considers the landlord was being appropriately customer focused and duly sensitive to the unfortunate and clearly very stressful situation in which the resident – and by extension his mother – found themselves.
As already noted, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident’s mother, at that stage, with written confirmation of the basis on which it considered the complaint on this issue closed, if indeed it did. Although the landlord had offered an explanation, in light of the fact that the resident’s mother had specifically requested compensation for an 18 month period the Ombudsman considers the landlord ought specially to have addressed this in its complaint response. It is for this reason that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code – although published in July 2020 and therefore after the landlord’s response – makes clear the need for a landlord to provide a written response to a resident at each stage of their complaint. By responding in writing, the landlord is necessarily focused on all aspects of the complaint to be addressed and the written response provides clarity to both parties going forward of the basis on which matters have been left.
The fact that the landlord did not do so in response to the resident’s mother’s May 2019 complaint meant she had again to complain in order to obtain from the landlord its considered explanation of the position both regarding the history of the case and its decision on her compensation request. This inevitably resulted in some inconvenience for her and a delay in having the complaint formally considered which understandably caused her and her son a degree of frustration.
When it did formally respond to the complaint in June 2020 the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s explanation of events was clear and comprehensive. The Ombudsman finds that although this explanation (and the fact that it meant compensation for the 18 month period was not warranted) was not ultimately accepted by the resident’s mother, the landlord’s explanation of what had transpired and why it was not responsible for the fact that her son had been unable at times to access his gas supply was based on the available evidence. [The compensation that was offered appears to have been in relation to the landlord’s handling of contact arrangements for its annual gas safety inspections, which are not the subject of this investigation.] Accordingly, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s complaint response in June 2020 was a reasonable one which sought appropriately to clarify the facts and draw a line under matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that he had been left without heating and hot water for 18 months between 2016 – 2018.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has considered the account of the resident’s mother that her son was left without heating and hot water for an 18 month period between 2016 – 2018 as a result of his gas supply having been capped. But the Ombudsman has not been able to reconcile her account with the available evidence, which indicates it was not a capping of her son’s gas supply by the landlord, but a lack of credit on his gas meter which caused him to be without gas for any period of time from August 2015 onwards. The evidence indicates that when the landlord was made aware of this it explained this fact to him and what he would need to do to re-establish the gas supply. It also subsequently sought to help get the debt cleared for him. The Ombudsman has found, however, that in response to the complaint the landlord ought to have made its final position clearer and at an earlier stage and its failure to do so caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for its delayed written response to the complaint.
2. Share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own self-assessment against the Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice and to provide the Ombudsman with written confirmation that it has done so.