Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communication problems causing an issue with gas servicing and repairs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says communication issues caused delays by the Council in repairing her boiler, leaving her without heat and hot water for five days. Ms X wants compensation for the impact and increased electric costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s contractor arranged the gas safety inspection for March. They had to cancel the appointment due to staff sickness. Unfortunately, they did not have the correct phone number for Ms X so could not speak to her to re-arrange the appointment. The contractor sent a letter making a new appointment for the following week. Ms X did not get the letter until after the appointment.
5. The engineers arrived to do the safety check. Ms X would not let them in; she was unaware of the appointment because she had not received the letter. She also says they did not show ID.
6. A few days later Ms X called the contractor. The contractor explained what had happened. Ms X complains that one person she spoke to did not introduce himself on the phone. During this call Ms X said her boiler was not working. The contractor sent an engineer on the same day; he fixed the boiler and did the gas safety check.
7. Ms X says she was without heating and hot water for five days. She asked the Council for compensation. The Council declined her request because she had not reported the fault before the phone call and, when she did report it, the contractor repaired the boiler on the same day.
8. The Council apologised for the incorrect phone number but also said she could have allowed access when the engineers came the following week. The Council explained the contractors wear ID but she had not asked to see it.
9. I will not start an investigation regarding the wrong phone number because there is insufficient evidence of injustice flowing from this issue. The wrong phone number meant there was a delay by the contractor in offering an alternative appointment for the gas check. I appreciate missed appointments are frustrating, but it does not amount to a level of injustice requiring an investigation. In addition, the appointment was for a service check, rather than disrepair, and the check would have taken place the following week if Ms X had allowed access.
10. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Ms X says her home was cold for five days and caused increased electricity costs. I appreciate she had a difficult few days but, as she delayed reporting the fault, there are no grounds to start an investigation or ask for compensation. The Council repaired the boiler as soon as Ms X reported a fault. In addition, while Ms X has expressed dissatisfaction with the way a contractor started a phone conversation, this is not a matter that needs an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman