Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel - find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202015899)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015899

The Guinness Partnership Limited

2 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a gas safety check at the property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Abandoned Properties Procedure details how it will deal with suspected abandoned properties. This contains various process maps, including a specific process map for if the property’s gas safety certificate is about to expire. This includes trying to establish contact with the tenant, conducting a home visit and leaving a calling card, requesting a copy of a ‘forced access approval form’ to record evidence of all attempts to contact the tenant, reviewing the evidence to conclude whether or not the property is likely to have been abandoned and, if so, seeking permission to serve a notice to quit (NTQ).
  2. The landlord’s Complaints and Compensation Policy states that it aims to resolve complaints as soon as it is told about them. It says it will not pay compensation where something has gone wrong but it is not its fault. However, it will always carry out repairs to remedy any situation where it has responsibility to do so. The policy does not set out any tariffs for compensation or goodwill gestures.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property in July 2012 on a starter assured shorthold tenancy that later became an assured tenancy.
  2. Under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998, the landlord is required to maintain all gas appliances within the property and must arrange annual safety checks on such appliances.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August, 17 August, 2 September and 4 September 2020 to inform him that the annual gas safety check on the property was now due and giving appointment times that had been booked in. The landlord also attempted to call the resident on 16 September 2020. The resident did not respond to any of these approaches.
  2. The landlord’s heating and hot water team has recorded that it was unable to gain access on 13 August, 17 August, 4 Sept and 17 September 2020.
  3. On 21 September 2020 the landlord visited the property. As there was no answer, it placed a sticker on the door about the gas safety check. It also tried to call the resident on the two numbers that it had for him. The landlord then emailed the resident to say that it was very important that he got in touch to make an appointment.
  4. On 23 September 2020 the landlord tried phoning the resident again and it also emailed him again. It also asked the building concierge to do a trace on the resident’s door fob to see if it was being used.
  5. On 24 September 2020 the landlord tried calling the resident again and then re-visited the property. The gas sticker was still in place and the fob trace showed that it was last used on 18 September 2020.
  6. On 25 September 2020 the landlord began to consider that the property might have been abandoned, given that there had been no response to numerous attempts to make contact with the resident about the gas safety check. The landlord therefore asked its lettings team to set up the NTQ paperwork.
  7. On 28 September 2020 the landlord visited the property again and found that the gas sticker was still in place. Having tried unsuccessfully to call the resident again (and finding that the two numbers were not in service), the NTQ was served by posting it through the letterbox.
  8. The landlord continued to try and contact the resident about the gas safety check, sending him an email on 28 September 2020 and a letter on 29 September 2020. This correspondence said that legal action may have to be taken if the resident did not allow access which might result in costs of up to £1,000 that would be charged to the resident.
  9. On 29 September 2020 the landlord reattended the property and found that the gas sticker was still in place from the initial visit. It also asked the concierge for a fob alert to be added to the resident’s fob. Later on 29 September 2020 the landlord received a call back request from the resident. However, the resident’s phone went to voicemail when the landlord tried to call him.
  10. On 30 September 2020 the landlord was alerted to the resident having returned to the property and that he had spoken to the concierge. The landlord tried to ring the resident but the two phone numbers were not in service. Upon visiting the property the same day, there was no answer even though the lights were on, therefore a new gas sticker was added to the door. The landlord also emailed the resident about making an appointment for the gas safety check.
  11. The landlord has a system note dated 1 October 2020 saying that the concierge had confirmed that the resident had returned and that NTQ investigations had ceased.
  12. The resident was then in contact with the landlord and the annual gas safety check was finally carried out on 7 October 2020 (having been due to expire on 17 October 2020).
  13. On 27 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about why it had tried to switch his energy supplier, which would cost him his warm home discount. He said he had received an email from his current supplier advising that his gas and electricity accounts would be switching over to British Gas.
  14. On 29 October 2020 the landlord’s letting manager sent an internal email asking someone to look into the situation urgently and to speak to British Gas once confirmation was received that the resident was staying at the property.
  15. On 30 October 2020 the landlord emailed British Gas. It explained that a NTQ had been served on the resident, with the tenancy due to terminate on 2 November 2020, however this process had been cancelled due to the resident’s return. It asked British Gas to confirm that the energy supply to the property would remain as it is and not be changed into the landlord’s name on 2 November 2020.
  16. British Gas responded the same day to say that they were due to take over the gas supply on 4 November 2020 and the electricity on 6 November 2020 but this had already been objected to by the current supplier (presumably because the resident had been in touch with them). British Gas said that therefore the supplies would not change. The landlord then left a voicemail message for the resident to say that it had contacted British Gas to cancel the transition and that the energy accounts would remain with his current supplier.
  17. The resident then contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint. He said that he went to say with his grandmother for ten days in September 2020 as she was ill. This led to it being alleged that he had abandoned the property which in turn led to his energy supplier being changed. The resident said that he had been trying to switch his accounts back but was unable to as it was now the landlord that was the account holder. He had also been advised that he had to pay a fee to his old supplier as he had come out of contract and that he had lost his winter fuel allowance of £140.
  18. On 20 January 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that the gas safety certificate was due to expire on 17 October 2020 and so it had attempted to contact the resident to book in the annual gas safety check, however he did not respond. This lack of response led it to believe that the property had been abandoned. Once a property is suspected of being abandoned, a NTQ is served and its lettings team is instructed to transfer the utilities into its own name. However, once it heard from the resident that he was not leaving the property, the NTQ was cancelled and it ensured that the energy supplier transfer had been cancelled. The landlord said that it understood that the process had been inconvenient for the resident but that all proper procedures were followed. It said it was sorry that the resident had lost out on his winter fuel allowance and that it could liaise with its customer support team to see if there was anyway in which it could help if he wished.
  19. Although the stage 1 response did not address the issue that the energy supplier did in fact change, the Ombudsman has seen some internal emails sent by the landlord, also on 20 January 2021, in which it is talking about establishing whether the supply was now in its name.
  20. The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 response and so, on 5 March 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated that, because it was unable to contact him about the gas safety check, it thought that he had abandoned the property. It said that, when a tenancy is due to end, it automatically instructs its contractor who deals with moving gas and electricity accounts into the landlord’s name. The landlord said that what seemed to have happened in this instance is that, once the NTQ had been cancelled, it did not inform the contractor that the transfer was no longer required. It said that, as a gesture of goodwill, it would reimburse him the £140 that was the lost winter fuel allowance.
  21. On 15 March 2021 the resident confirmed to this service that he was still having trouble getting the gas and electric accounts back into his name.
  22. On 12 April 2021 the landlord has a system note recording that since the utilities switch, the resident had not been able to access his account as British Gas will not discuss it with him. It was noted that the resident had mental health issues and was struggling to rectify matters.
  23. Between 15 – 26 April 2021 the landlord attempted to contact the resident on at least three occasions to ask if he wanted any support but did not receive any response.
  24. On 12 May 2021 the resident then did phone the landlord to say that the energy supplier had still not been put back into his name. He said that he did not want to deal with his allocated customer liaison officer (CLO) anymore but would deal with anyone else.
  25. On 25 May 2020 the landlord has a system note saying that there had been no response from the resident to its contact attempts and the case had been closed.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in relation to its handling of the gas safety check, the subsequent issuing of a NTQ and the resident’s reports of his energy accounts being changed and whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord has a legal duty to maintain gas safety certificates on all of its properties. Its process is that it starts to send letters out to its tenants around two months in advance of the gas safety check becoming due. In this case the gas safety certificate was due to expire on 17 October 2020 and the first letter was sent to the resident on 3 August 2020.
  3. The letters were sent to the resident’s correct postal address. The emails were sent to the resident’s correct email address (being the same email address that he has provided to this service). The landlord had two phone numbers for the resident and was trying both numbers on each occasion that it tried to make contact with him. At least one of these numbers (ending in 636) is a correct number for the resident. The landlord has noted that this is the number that the resident called it from on 12 May 2021. It is also the number that the resident has supplied to this service as part of his contact details.
  4. The resident has told this service that he received no phone calls from the landlord and does not know how the landlord can say that it tried to contact him. However, the landlord has a note of the resident contacting it on 23 November 2020 and playing it the voicemail message that had been left by the CLO to say that the energy supplier transfer had been cancelled. He played this to the landlord to demonstrate what he considered to be lying on the part of the CLO. The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the landlord’s system notes and other evidence that records when attempts were made to contact the resident by phone. Furthermore, as well as trying to call the resident, the landlord also contacted him by letter and email, to his correct addresses as mentioned above.
  5. The first attempt to contact the resident about the gas safety check was on 3 August 2020. The landlord only began to consider that the property might have been abandoned on 25 September 2020 after numerous attempts to contact the resident had failed. Although the fob trace showed that it had last been used on 18 September 2020, this was not sufficient to conclude that it was the resident that had used it. The sticker placed on the door on 21 September was still there untouched on 24 September 2020. It was an unfortunate coincidence that the resident happened to be away during the end of September 2020 when urgency around the annual gas safety check was coming to a head. However, overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord had reasonable grounds by 25 September 2020 to suspect that the property had been abandoned. It had repeatedly attempted to make contact with the resident for in excess of seven weeks by the point that it decided that the property might be abandoned and had to be mindful of the upcoming expiry date for the existing gas safety certificate.
  6. Even after the NTQ had been served on 28 September 2020, the landlord continued to try and make contact with the resident by emailing and sending him a further reminder about the gas safety check. The CLO also visited the property again on 29 September 2020, witnessing that the original sticker was still on the door.
  7. As soon as it became clear that the resident had returned to the property, the abandonment process was discontinued and the NTQ cancelled. However, the issue of the gas safety check being due remained outstanding. The landlord therefore visited the property again on 1 October 2020 and left another gas sticker on the door when there was no answer. The landlord also emailed and left a voicemail message for the resident on 2 October 2020, after which the resident did make contact. Given that the gas safety certificate was due to expire on 17 October 2020 it was reasonable of the landlord to make all necessary efforts to contact the resident to arrange access for the gas safety check.
  8. Part of the procedure of cancelling the abandonment process should have been that the landlord contacted its lettings team to ask British Gas to cancel the transfer of utilities, which should have been around 1 October 2020. However, it was not until the resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2020 to say that he had been informed by his current supplier that the accounts were about to be changed to British Gas, that the landlord took action.
  9. The NQT expiry date had been set for 2 November 2020 and this was therefore the presumed tenancy end date. The landlord emailed British Gas on 30 October 2020 to confirm that the energy supply should not now be changed to British Gas. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the reply sent by British Gas on the same day to confirm that the supply would not change. Although the landlord should ideally have contacted British Gas earlier, the cancellation of the supplier transfer was still done in advance of the scheduled date. It is unclear why the supply then did change to British Gas. However, based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the fault for this lies with the landlord.
  10. The landlord had no reason to suspect that the supplier did in fact change to British Gas at the beginning of November 2020. However, as part of his stage 1 complaint, the resident explained that this was the case. Although the stage 1 response acknowledged this, it did not offer any advice or assistance to try and rectify the matter. In this respect the landlord did not follow its own complaints policy of aiming to try and resolve complaints as soon as it is told about them.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response gives some inaccurate information. It says that it had a contractor that dealt with moving energy accounts when a tenancy was due to end and that the contractor had not been informed that the transfer was no longer required. However, the former lettings manager has since clarified that the landlord was not yet using that contractor at that time and that it was still using British Gas to supply its empty homes. As stated above, the landlord did tell British Gas in time that the transfer was no longer required.
  12. Although the resident had informed the landlord that he was unable to move his energy accounts back to his old supplier, as was his preference, because British Gas said the supply was now in the name of the landlord and therefore it would not talk to him, the stage 2 response again failed to address this issue at all. The Ombudsman is unaware of whether this issue has now been resolved or whether the energy accounts remain in the landlord’s name.
  13. As part of the complaint review, the landlord identified that the CLO had not sought the approval of her manager prior to requesting the NTQ, which she should have done under the abandoned properties procedure. Neither had the CLO served the seven day NTQ pre-warning letter to the resident. However, the reviewer concluded that, given the circumstances, the manager would have agreed that there was enough evidence to conclude that the property had been abandoned and would therefore have signed off the NTQ.
  14. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check process was reasonable and was dealt with in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord’s suspicions that the property had been abandoned were also reasonable, given the lack of any response by the resident to numerous and various approaches. The decision to start the abandonment process was also therefore proportionate, particularly in light of the gas safety check becoming due.
  15. The landlord should have contacted British Gas immediately after the abandonment process was discontinued. Also, the abandoned properties procedure was not correctly followed. However, these inactions on the part of the landlord did not result in any detriment to the resident. This is because the landlord was still able to contact British Gas before the proposed change over date (even though an error later occurred elsewhere) and because it is more likely than not that a NTQ would have been issued anyway, even if the correct procedure had been strictly adhered to.
  16. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord did not do enough to address the resident’s reports that the energy supply had been changed to British Gas, despite the landlord’s efforts to cancel the process. It makes sense that British Gas would refuse to discuss the accounts with the resident if he is not the account holder, therefore the landlord would have to get involved. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord made contact with British Gas (or any other party) about this issue, even though it had acknowledged that the resident was struggling to rectify matters.
  17. The landlord was not responsible for the gas and electric supply being changed over to British Gas. Therefore, its gesture of goodwill offer to the resident of £140, to cover his lost winter fuel allowance, is sufficient to resolve the main part of the complaint. However, the landlord did not address the issue of the accounts actually having switched in its complaint responses or assist the resident to get his energy accounts switched back. Therefore, to take into account the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the Ombudsman’s view is that the compensation offer should be increased by a further £50.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in the way it has handled the gas safety check at the property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s handling of the gas safety check process and subsequent abandonment process was reasonable given the prolonged non-response from the resident to all communication attempts. However, in the circumstances, the landlord should have done more to assist the resident in having his energy accounts returned to his original supplier.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £190, made up of the original £140 it offered plus an additional £50.
  2. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 23 August 2021.

Recommendation

  1. If the energy supply is still with British Gas, the landlord should assist the resident in every way possible to have it restored to the resident’s preferred supplier.