Summary: There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X concerns about the tenant of a commercial premises using her gas supply.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council failed to take sufficient action to ensure the tenant of a commercial premises was not using her gas supply.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Interviewed officer A, a Council officer to obtain more information;
• Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X lives in a privately rented property above a commercial property. The Council has a selective licensing scheme which requires all private rented property to be licensed. Miss X’s property is licensed.
6. In September, Miss X contacted the Council as a gas engineer visiting her property had identified a gas pipe running from her gas meter to the property below. Miss X believed the tenant of the commercial premises was using her gas supply.
7. On 16 October, officer A, environmental health, visited Miss X’s property and the commercial premises with Miss X and the landlord. Officer A’s records of the visit show the premises was using Miss X’s gas supply to heat hot water and a radiator. When interviewed officer A said she looked round the premises on her own as well as with the landlord and found no other appliances that could use the gas supply. The record of officer A’s visit shows she discussed with the landlord the options for preventing the use of Miss X’s gas supply.
8. Miss X sent an email to officer A on the same day asking for information about the outcome of the inspection. Miss X then made a complaint at stage one of the Council’s complaints procedure the next day.
9. On 22 October, officer A wrote Miss X’s landlord setting out the works needed. Officer A said the landlord should either install a second gas meter to provide independent gas supplies to both Miss X’s flat and the commercial premises. Alternatively, the landlord could arrange for a registered gas engineer to permanently cap off the radiator. Officer A requested the works be carried out within 28 days.
10. Miss X contacted the Council requesting an update. Officer A advised that the gas supply to the commercial premises would be capped off and the landlord was aware the cap must remain in place. Miss X was concerned the tenant of the commercial premises could remove the cap and use the gas which she would have to pay for. When interviewed officer A said she considered the works to cap off the radiator and hot water would be sufficient to ensure Miss X’s gas supply was not used. She considered it was unlikely the tenant would reconnect the radiator and hot water so it would not be appropriate to request the landlord carried out more expensive works such as installing a second gas meter.
11. The landlord arranged for the works to be carried out on 6 November. He sent invoices to the Council as proof the works had been carried out.
12. Miss X continued to complain that tenant of the commercial premises was using her gas supply. Miss X provided details of her gas usage which she considered to be higher than expected. Officer A called the landlord who confirmed the commercial premises could not use the gas supply. When interviewed officer A said she did not reinspect the property as her telephone call with the landlord did not give her cause for concern.
13. Miss X made a further complaint which the Council considered at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. Officer A carried out an unannounced inspection and found the radiator had been removed and the hot water supply to the wash basin had been capped off. The Council provided photographs to evidence the works had been carried out as part of its response to Miss X.
14. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman as she considered the tenant of the commercial premises continued to use her gas supply.

My assessment

15. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X concerns about the commercial premises using her gas supply. Officer A inspected the premises and instructed landlord to carry out works to ensure the tenant could not use the gas supply. Officer A also contacted the landlord when Miss X continued to raise concerns and also carried out an unannounced visit in response to Miss X’s complaint which showed the works had been carried out. So I am satisfied the Council properly investigated Miss X’s concerns.
16. Miss X considered the works agreed by officer A would not be sufficient as she was concerned the tenant could reconnect the radiator and hot water. Officer A had visited the premises and discussed the works with the landlord so she was in a good position to make a judgement as to what works would be sufficient to stop the use of Miss X’s gas supply. Officer A has also explained why she was satisfied the works would be sufficient. Furthermore, officer A’s unannounced inspection found the radiator had been removed and hot water capped off. So I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how officer A reached her decision that the works were sufficient.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Miss X concerns about a tenant of a commercial premises using her gas supply. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman