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

The Riverside Group Limited (202011970)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011970

The Riverside Group Limited

20 May 2021 [amended 08 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord for its disconnection of her external gas supply to the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder and occupies a semi-detached house (the property). The property was transferred to the current landlord as part of a housing stock transfer from her previous landlord on 16 March 2020.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 May 2020 to advise her that her annual gas service and safety check was due, and it had made an appointment for her on 13 May 2020. This letter stated that, as her landlord, it was obliged by law to carry out an annual gas safety check at the property and she was obliged, by the terms of her tenancy agreement, to provide access to her property to complete this.
  3. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 29 May 2020 to state that its engineer had been unable to gain access for the gas safety and service check and provided a new appointment date of 17 April 2020.  On 10 June 2020, it wrote to her again to relay that its engineer had not been able to gain access for the work and it provided an appointment date of 17 April 2020. Both letters specified that failure to keep the appointment could lead to it automatically capping off the gas supply to ensure the health and safety of neighbouring residents.
  4. On 21 August 2020, the resident discovered that there was no gas to her property. The regional gas distributor visited the property the following afternoon and noted that the gas meter had been ‘capped’ (disconnected from the gas supply). The resident contacted her gas supplier who visited that evening and reconnected the gas supply.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 1 September 2020 to raise a formal complaint, stating her gas had been disconnected without warning. She said that she had received no contact from it to inform her of the gas service apart from its engineer who “turned up one day” when she was busy and had been “rude and aggressive”. The landlord advised her of two emails and three letters which had been sent to the resident, but she said she had not received any of these. It provided its complaint response the same day in which it apologised for capping her gas supply and arranged for its housing officer to contact her to clarify which services she was responsible for.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 2 September 2020. She cited her reason for escalation was her continued dissatisfaction with it disconnecting her gas supply incorrectly when there was a vulnerable household member in the property, and the “stress and anxiety” this caused her.
  7. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 24 September 2020. It explained that the stock transfer from the previous landlord had been “poor for the majority of properties” which included providing information for the responsibility for the gas servicing for her property; therefore, it had assumed responsibility for this.
  8. The landlord attached the three letters it had previously sent to the resident to request access to the property and noted that she had said that she had not received these. It confirmed that these letters had been generated and apologised if she had not received them. The landlord explained that due to the lack of response from the resident, it chose to cap her gas meter externally and acknowledged that it should have posted written confirmation to her about this. It advised that feedback had been given to staff to ensure this was done in future.
  9. The landlord confirmed that the property had been removed from its annual gas safety and servicing programme and apologised for any distress caused. It offered her £50 as a gesture of goodwill in recognition of this. 

Assessment and findings

Policies

  1. The resident’s lease agreement with the landlord is silent on which party is responsible for the gas supply to the property.
  2. The landlord’s customer feedback procedure provides for a two-stage complaints process. At the first stage, a resolution timeframe is to be agreed with the resident within ten working days and its response may not necessarily be provided in writing. At the final stage, the landlord’s decision should be provided to the resident within ten working days of receipt of the escalation request.

The level of compensation offered to the resident by the landlord for its disconnection of her external gas supply to the property

  1. It would be expected of a landlord to carry out annual gas safety and servicing inspections to maintain the health and safety of residents. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord made attempts to contact the resident to obtain access to do this. Considering the lack of response to its three letters, it was appropriate for it to cap the gas supply into the property for safety reasons.
  2. However, while its actions were reasonable, the landlord’s recordkeeping and contact were not. It is noted that two of its letters, dated 29 May and 10 June 2020, offered an appointment date which had already elapsed. This was likely to have caused confusion to the resident. The landlord explained, in its final stage complaint response on 24 September 2020, that it had received inadequate information from the previous landlord which led to it assuming it was responsible for gas safety checks at the property. As the lease was silent on the matter of responsibility for maintaining installations for the use of gas in the property, while any ambiguity existed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out further investigation before capping the gas supply causing potential distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The landlord acknowledged, in its final stage complaint response on 24 September 2020, that it should have informed the resident of its actions after capping the gas and that capping the gas unnecessarily led to her experiencing distress. It apologised for this and offered £50. Although it did not acknowledge that its letters had been confusing, and it did not specify the steps it would take to clarify its gas servicing obligation in future, the compensation it offered represented reasonable redress.
  4. When the Ombudsman considers amounts of compensation, it is important to note that these awards are not intended to punish, or make an example of, the landlord. Awards of compensation are made to recognise that there has been some detriment to the resident, and the amount of the award should be proportional to the level of detriment experienced by the resident because of any failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. It is noted that, in this case, the resident says the gas supply was capped on 21 August 2020 and restored the following day, on 22 August 2020. While this was likely to have caused distress and inconvenience, the resident was not without gas for a significant time, and the situation was explained to her on 1 September 2020. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was therefore reasonable as it was broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance where “there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. This offer, together with its apology and assurance that it had updated its records accordingly, was a reasonable response from the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s final stage complaint response was issued to the resident on 24 September 2020, 16 working days after she requested her complaint to be escalated on 2 September 2020. This was six days more than the timeframe specified in its customer feedback procedure, above at point 12. Therefore, the landlord failed to handle the complaint in accordance with its procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages the timely resolution of complaints to minimise any potential distress, inconvenience, and uncertainty to the resident. In this case, the landlord delayed its provision of the final stage response and did not acknowledge this in its response. Therefore, an additional amount of £25 compensation should be paid to the resident to recognise the potential detriment caused to her for the period in which the complaint response was delayed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning the level of compensation it offered to her for its disconnection of her external gas supply to the property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for capping the resident’s gas supply unnecessarily and updated its records accordingly to prevent a reoccurrence. It also offered an amount of compensation which was proportionate to the likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and was broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  2. The landlord delayed its provision of its final stage response and did not acknowledge this in its response.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay £25 compensation to the resident for its delay in providing its final response.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £50 compensation it offered the resident in its final stage complaint response.
  2. The landlord should review its procedures for determining whether properties should receive annual gas safety and servicing checks and its contact with residents about this.
  3. The landlord should review its processes for offering appointments by letter to prevent incorrect and potentially confusing appointment dates being offered.
  4. The landlord should carry out refresher training for its complaints handling staff to ensure that future complaints are handling in accordance with its procedures.