GAS SAFETY REVIEW
Author: Resident Scrutiny Panel
Date: March 2016
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The Resident Scrutiny Panel agreed to undertake this review at the
request of the internal auditors, Service Matters UK. This review,
undertaken from the residents’ point of view, which examines the gas
safety process and information available to residents, is in conjunction
with, and complementary to the Gas Safety Audit being completed by
Service Matters UK.
2
INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND
2.1 The Resident Scrutiny Panel examined and discussed the following
information for this review.
 Information on the CHP website
 Gas safety leaflet
 Articles in previous editions of Your Home magazine
 Appointment times offered
 Appointment letters
 Timeframe for appointments
 Satisfaction surveys
 Telephone interview with 3 residents (75 letters sent out, 6 responses, 3
willing to be contacted, 3 did not want to be contacted)
3
FINDINGS
3.1 Control Framework
 The gas safety information on the CHP website was readily accessible
and easy to understand. There is a link to the gas safety leaflet with
alternative versions in 12 different languages, plus audio and pictorial
options. There is also a link to the relevant information from the Health
and Safety Executive.
 The Panel found the information in the leaflet easy to understand,
although it was noted that the leaflet did not mention the required gas
appliance checks in the introduction (in the blue box).
 The Panel also found the gas safety articles in Your Home to be
relatively small and unobtrusive considering the importance of the
subject matter.
1|Page
3.2 Gas Servicing Information
 The Panel found, after examining the gas safety checks timeline and
the appointment letters sent out, that sufficient notice of appointments
(approximately 2 weeks) was given to residents.
 The Panel found that while the appointment letters do offer the option of
evening appointments, the time frame for these is not specified.
 The letters gave the necessary information, including who to contact,
and were easy to understand, however their appearance was generic
with insufficient differentiation between an initial appointment letter and
a final warning of legal procedures being taken.
 There is no prior warning of a possible caution being given before it is
actually issued in letter 3.
 While the caution explains that it will remain on the tenant’s file it fails to
specify for how long, i.e. is it for a specific period or indefinite?
 Letters 3a to 4b inclusive advise tenants that AM is between 08.30 and
13.00 while PM is between 12.00 and 17.00
3.3 Contract Management and Performance
 The responses from the three residents who agreed to be contacted
were on the whole favourable, although some criticisms were made.
See Attachment 1 for details of responses.
 In total, 555 satisfaction surveys were looked at, of which 444 were
satisfactory but made no comment. Of the remaining 111 surveys, 86
(15.5% of the total) gave complimentary responses and 25 (4.5% of the
total) were dissatisfied.
 The survey review corroborates CHP’s overall satisfaction data which
gives satisfaction rates of 90% plus.
 The themes from dissatisfied residents were shown to be mainly
concerning the conduct of the engineer and appointment times not
being adhered to.
 There were no formal complaints made by residents about gas safety
checks.
 The Panel found that no changes to the gas safety survey questions
were needed.
 From Panel members’ own experience pre-paid return envelopes were
not always included with the appointment / survey letters.
4
CONCLUSION
4.1 The Panel concluded that:
 The overall standard of the gas safety checking from CHP / T Brown is
good.
2|Page
 CHP deal with access requirements in a timely manner with sufficient
time given for checks to be carried out before current safety certificates
expire.
4.2 The Panel agreed that as no findings fell into the ‘fundamental’, ‘major’ or
‘significant ‘ categories and all recommendations were ‘observation
points’, this review should be given a ‘green’ rating.
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Observation Points
 The gas safety leaflet should mention the required gas appliance
checks in the introduction (information in the blue box)
 Future gas safety articles in Your Home magazine should be larger and
more prominent to reflect the importance of the subject matter
 The letters should be amended as follows
I. The first and second letters should offer a morning or afternoon
appointment without the resident having to phone to arrange this
II. The specific availability timeframe for evening appointments should
be put into all letters.
III. Letter 2 should include a warning that a caution may be served if
access is not granted on the occasion of the second appointment.
IV. Letter 3 should state for how long the caution will remain on file
V. The titles of the letters be changed as follows:
a. Letter 2 should contain the word ‘Reminder’ in the title;
b. Letter 3 should have the title in red coloured text and
include the word ‘warning’;
c. Letter 4 should also have the title in red coloured text and
contain the words ‘final warning’; and
d. Letters could also be numbered
VI. The references to AM and PM in letters 3 and 4 should have their
wording amended to refer to morning and afternoon appointments.
 Feedback about the service received and any changes made should be
published in Your Home magazine.
 A reminder should be given to staff to ensure that the pre-paid return
envelopes are included with all appointment / survey letters.
3|Page
Attachment 1:
Question
1 Do you think you were given sufficient
notice of when the gas service was
due?
2 Were the appointment times given
convenient to you?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Respondent 1
Yes
Respondent 2
Yes
Respondent 3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Did you find the letter from CHP / T
Brown about the appointment easy to
understand?
If you rearranged the appointment was
the notification given to you in your
preferred format (i.e. email, text or
letter)?
Were you made aware of what the
service involves and what to expect?
Did the engineer come at the correct
time?
Yes
Yes
Ok in 2015 but in 2014 the appointment came through and
customer contacted the number provided to change it. The
engineer did not arrive at the appointed time. Another
appointment was made and again the engineer did not attend.
Shortly after the resident had a ‘nasty’ letter and was upset at
being accused of being unco-operative
Yes
Was not
needed
See answer 6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, except for 2014 as stated above.
Did the engineer show you his ID
badge?
Do you think the engineer was polite
and courteous?
Yes
Yes
No. He came when we were away
on holiday, but came back the next
day when we were at home
No, and didn’t ask but van was
outside.
Yes
Were you made aware of the outcome
of the service and if any further work
was required?
Is there anything you would like to
suggest to make the service more
convenient to you?
Yes
Yes
All very fair
Would like the letter a little earlier
so can be prepared and make
changes if away at that time. Quite
happy with the service generally.
Yes
Yes. The engineers always had a quick look at the gas cooker,
checking the flame and the door, but the most recent one said
it was not his job
Radiators in bedroom and bathroom had to be renewed after
just 7 years but a good job was done.
The old date of September is preferred as the resident is away
a lot in summer and recent checks have been done in July.
The resident thinks R G Francis was fabulous, but is not happy
with T Brown.
4|Page