Notting Hill ‘weak’ on gas servicing
Notting Hill Housing Trust has been told it needs to improve its gas servicing, following an Audit Commission inspection.
The news, in an otherwise positive report, comes almost two years after a high profile case in which a shared owner died of carbon monoxide poisoning in the home she co-owned with Notting Hill Housing. The home, in Bedfont Lakes, Hounslow, in which 26-year-old Elouise Littlewood died had received a full set of gas safety certificates from house builder Barratt just months prior to her death. Notting Hill was not responsible for the gas servicing of Ms Littlewood’s home. The Audit Commission report, which is about gaining access to properties and not the standard of gas servicing, in no way relates to the tragedy. But it comes as a surprise because following the tragedy Notting Hill voluntarily carried out high profile gas safety checks on the rest of its housing stock.
Its work included identifying all properties with similar gas systems to the one installed in Ms Littlewood’s home, inspecting a random sample of these and focusing its 2008/09 boiler replacement programme on those properties.
It also committed to hard-wiring carbon monoxide detectors in all new developments, which is not a current safety requirement.
Despite this the Audit Commission found that ‘there is weak and inconsistent performance on gas servicing with a number of properties without a current gas safety certificate’, in a report released last week. The criticisms related to gaining access to properties and not the standard of gas servicing.
‘The range of measures used to gain access for gas servicing is not comprehensive,’ it added. ‘Lack of access means tenants’ gas installation cannot be serviced and their safety put in doubt.
‘Carbon monoxide detectors have not been fitted in the existing homes of all vulnerable tenants and this means their safety could be endangered.’
In a statement Notting Hill Housing Trust said that four out of six areas inspected in the short-notice inspection had more strengths than weaknesses.
Kate Davies, chief executive of Notting Hill Housing Trust, said: ‘We have already adopted the suggestions made by the Audit Commission and raised our gas servicing performance. Now 99.6 per cent of the trust’s homes have gas safety certificates, a level that compares well to similar organisations.’
The statement added that the commission had recommended that it looked at using new additional measures to ensure it gains entry for gas servicing.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (11)
Max | 10/02/2010 9:10 am
So the Audit Commission tells all organisations what it looks for through its Gas Safety Technical Note and publishes loads of inspection reports of organisations where they have got it right and yet still some get it wrong. You must think that some organisations just don't have the capacity to learn. These terminally bewildered organisations need to be put out their misery as they are playing with the lives of their innocent customers who deserve better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 10/02/2010 10:41 am
I wonder how many were down to refusal of access and the long legal battle to get access?
I work for an org with 100% gas safety checks and yet every year we have to spend thousands chasing a few tenants through the legal system for them to give in and allow access at the last moment. What an utter waste.
Housing providers should damn well be hitting 100% but before damning either side its worth knows why they dont.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gary | 10/02/2010 11:06 am
It seems a little unfair to single out Notting Hill for bad publicity here. Moat Housing has also just been audited and according to the published report "Strengths outweigh weaknesses", was changed to "weaknesses outweigh strengths" when it came to light, post inspection, that there were "errors" in the gas database. Moat were reporting 99.9% compliance when the reality was that the figure was only 94.6%.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chloe | 10/02/2010 11:22 am
It’s unfortunate that the only time criticism comes at a Trust is when someone dies and before anyone says this is unacceptable, I agree we should manage our properties and ensure the safety of our residents.
But let’s be reasonable here the present legislation placed on a Trust requires them to undertake an annual service/safety check. And most of our residents cooperate fully with us to deliver this task 99% of the time. But what is needed is a review of the legislation on gaining access, the powers that be need to bit the bullet and provide the Trust with the right to gain access through carrying out a lock change after 3 No written request being made to the resident. Forget all the humming and aring lets be reasonable what the benefits to be gained here are:
The appliances are serviced on time and in accordance with the legislation.
The resident’s safety is assured by annual servicing being carried out
Any defective parts such as flues or gas escapes will be identified at time of service
The appliances are operating at maximum efficiency cutting down pollution and reducing running costs
The Trust is not being subjected to extortionate legal costs in pursuing access through the courts £540.00 is not uncommon and even when securing an injunction there is no guarantee that access will be provided by the resident in question
The only disadvantage being the resident who is reluctant to provide access is inconvenience by having to collect a new key from the Trust's offices.
I recall writing to the ministers on this subject many years ago and yet there is still no common sense approach being taken over this subject. But to criticise a Trust for not having 100% access is a copout in my view by all in power. This is safety and peoples’ lives and the legislation should be strong enough to deliver it in the most cost effective way.
I would be very surprised if there are not other who feel the same as me out there so make a statement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 10/02/2010 11:22 am
The gas servicing did not prevent the death of Miss Littlewood, so not sure what the connection is with the gas servicing report. Hard-wiring the carbon monoxide detectors during decent homes work was a consideration but this idea was kicked to touch because of the additional costs and not a legal requirement.
Gaining entry is always to be problem unless an evening and weekend service is offered. Legal measures have been used successfully in the past but this using a sledge hammer to crack a nut!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anon | 10/02/2010 1:42 pm
There is a glaring anomay in the whole scenario-annual gas checks are obligitory for social housing tenants but leaseholders can only be requested to get thier's done independantly (at thier own expense)-many don't especially those who sub-let thier properties-consequently even if the landlord ensures 100% compliance gas safety remains a clear potential hazard in many blocks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 10/02/2010 2:28 pm
anon you could say that for all privately owned flats/property. The owner is responsible for ensuring they have their gas appliances checked annually but how many do?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Reaper | 10/02/2010 2:39 pm
anon | Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:42 GMT
"There is a glaring anomay ... leaseholders can only be requested to get thier's done independantly (at thier own expense)-"
Nothing whatsoever to do with the story above. However, most Public Sector leases ask that the Leaseholder keep the property in good repair and condition (this would include at least an annual safety check). If the property was sublet then the owner would become a landlord and would have legal responsibilities. The law seems pretty clear on this to me. No anomaly here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
vh | 11/02/2010 8:59 am
what are the stats? owners that I know never get a service, social tenants have a standard that all landlords have to comply with, but what have we learned? in the cases where action is needed its the lifestyle choices of tenants that make a big difference. no acces, not to have a service, block up vents that allow free flow of air, have 'possession' issues ie hoard and store unsuitable material in their home. I am only quoting from our own own data, could be owners are just the same. Problem is, we will never know as they dont have to provide this data, but we do,. Surely we live and learn.
It should be a condition of having a gas supply - annual safety check or no gas - easy
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Plonk | 13/02/2010 1:19 pm
This also highlights the question of who is responsible in shared ownership properties, in a shared ownership property the housing association is charging rent for the portion they own and is therefore a landlord but has no responsibility for servicing. Is this a grey area?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment