Southwark Council (202411974)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block of 50 properties. The block is made up of 5 staircases, each with 10 properties and its own entrance. When the resident moved in, there was no communal door entry system for the block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Replacing her front door.
   2. Installing a communal door entry system.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacing her front door.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about installing a communal door entry system.
6. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. There was a communication failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacing her front door.
9. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the charges for the installation of a communal door entry system.
10. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, but it has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for repairs and making good any defects to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the front door. If the door cannot be repaired or made good and needs replacing, the landlord is responsible for this.
12. The FRA completed on 3 September 2020 said all flat front doors in the block should be replaced and recommended further inspections of the doors for individual risk assessments to be completed. We have seen no evidence that further inspections were undertaken. However, as this was a recommendation and the report said the doors needed replacing, the landlord was entitled to decide not to complete further inspections and go ahead with the replacement of all doors, in line with its expert’s advice.
13. This was an understandable decision considering increased fire safety concerns in large blocks following the Grenfell Tower tragedy several years earlier; as well as the number of properties it would need to inspect and the time and resources this would have taken, when it had already been told the doors needed to be replaced.
14. When the resident raised her concerns about this as part of her complaint and escalation request, the landlord did not explain why it had not completed further inspections as recommended. This would have been sensible to help the resident understand its decision and reassure her it was not taking costly action to replace the doors unnecessarily.
15. This was a communication error that amounts to service failure and, had the landlord better explained its position, it may have prevented the resident’s dissatisfaction. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures which did not affect the overall outcome.
16. In February 2024 the landlord told the resident of its intention to take legal action to access the property to carry out the door replacement works. In response, the resident asked again about a further survey being done of the door, as recommended by the FRA. Following this, the landlord instructed a survey by its fire safety surveyor, which went ahead in May 2024.
17. While not obligated to do this, it was a sensible action for the landlord to take to address the resident’s concerns, with the intention of being able to replace the door and avoid legal action. The landlord could have considered doing this sooner as a way to progress the matter, but as it was not obligated to do this, it was not a failure that it did not.
18. In March 2024 the resident said that a further FRA had been done on 16 August 2023 and this did not say her door needed replacing. We have seen a copy of the report and while it did not specifically say the resident’s door needed replacing, it did comment on the door being an older ‘notional’ door. This is a fire door that satisfied the safety standards applicable at the time of construction, but does not meet the latest safety requirements.
19. Considering this, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded the door needed to be replaced to ensure it met current fire safety standards. We have seen no evidence that the landlord specifically explained this to the resident, but it did tell her what a notional fire door was in communication on 31 May 2024 and the reasons why this did not meet the required standard and so needed replacing. Therefore, its response to this concern was reasonable.
20. The outcome of the landlord’s survey in May 2024 was that the resident’s front door did not meet the required fire safety standards, could not be upgraded and needed to be replaced. The resident has raised concerns that the inspection was not done by an independent party and questioned the impartiality of the decision. The landlord was entitled to use its own internal expert and rely on their decision. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord replaces the front door and the resident is encouraged to work with it to allow this to happen at the earliest opportunity.
21. The resident has said the landlord has been inconsistent in its handling of this matter as some residents with the same doors have not had to have them replaced and only had upgrade works done. Following its inspection in May 2024, the landlord told the resident that the reason for this was because her door was in an enclosed escape route (internal communal area), while the other doors were in an open escape route (open balcony). This meant a different type of door standard was required. This was a reasonable explanation for the difference in the landlord’s approach.

22. In December 2021 the landlord confirmed that grant funding had been provided by local Councillors to install security doors at the block. It subsequently said the grant would not cover the cost of the installation. While disappointing for the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord as the funding was applied for by local Councillors, and so it was not something within the landlord’s control.
23. The resident’s lease says she agrees to pay a proportion of costs and expenses incurred by the landlord for the management and maintenance of the building and estate, including the installation of a door entry system by way of an improvement. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord would recharge the resident a proportion of the costs for this work, if there was no grant available to pay for this.
24. Before a landlord completes improvement works to a block, it must be able to justify that these works are necessary and required. Part of this can include consulting with residents. The landlord did that in this case by completing 2 ballots. After the first ballot, conducted by the landlord, it said concerns were raised about this and so it instructed an independent company to complete a second ballot. This was fair and showed it had taken the concerns seriously.
25. The outcome of both ballots was that the majority of residents wanted the installation to go ahead. Considering this, and that there had been numerous reports of ASB and criminal behaviour in the block for several years, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to go ahead with installing a communal door entry system.
26. The landlord told the resident on 16 May 2023 that the installation was going ahead and an approximate cost of the works. It said a Section 20 notice would be sent “in the coming weeks”. However, this was not sent until nearly 6 months later, on 3 November 2023; which was 6 weeks after the door entry system had been installed.
27. The purpose of the Section 20 process is for landlords to consult with residents about major works that are going to cost over a certain amount. As part of this process, landlords should tell residents what work they intend to do, why, and the expected cost. It should also give residents the opportunity to ask questions and make observations. Therefore, it is a requirement that this process is done before any works are undertaken, in the majority of cases. In this case, that did not happen and so it appeared to the resident that the landlord has not properly followed this process.
28. We cannot determine that a charge is unreasonable or that the landlord failed to comply with the Section 20 process, as these are matters for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to consider. What we have assessed is how the landlord communicated about this matter. When the resident raised concerns about not being properly consulted via the Section 20 process, the landlord acknowledged the formal notice was sent after the works had started and gave reassurances about value for money. However, it did not explain why it was still able to charge for these works, when it had not consulted in advance.
29. We are aware there are circumstances where landlords can consult retrospectively, and if that was the case here, the landlord should have explained this to the resident. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns and explain its position in respect of the charges has left her believing she has been incorrectly and unfairly charged over £3,000 for these works. This has caused her distress and upset and amounts to maladministration.
30. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and respond to her concerns in writing, including why it believes it is entitled to charge her for these works, when it appears the consultation process was not correctly followed. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this, she can raise this directly with the FTT for further consideration. We also order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

31. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 24 May 2023, 6 working days after it was raised. This was over the 3 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy at the time. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day it was raised, which was in line with the committed timescale in its policy.
32. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days. However, the landlord’s acknowledgement emails to the resident said it would respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. We have assessed the landlord against the timescales it gave the resident, despite them being shorter than the timescales in its policy. This is because it told her it would respond within these timescales and so she understandably expected it to do so.
33. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with the timescale given. It sent the stage 2 response in 56 working days. This was more than double the timescale given, and equates to a delay of more than 7 weeks. We have seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident during this period of delay or gave her a revised deadline of when it would respond. This was disappointing for her and left her not knowing when the complaint would be addressed.
34. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling, apologised and offered £50 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
35. Considering the circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £50 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. We have not identified any record keeping issues as part of this investigation. The records provided were sufficient for us to investigate the complaint.

Communication

37. The landlord must ensure it responds to specific issues and concerns raised by residents, both as part of the complaint process and service requests. A lack of communication means residents do not know or understand why decisions have been made and can lead to misunderstanding and dissatisfaction.
38. The landlord must ensure the response timescales given in complaint acknowledgements are in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
39. The landlord must ensure it responds to complaints in accordance with its committed timescales. If it is unable to do so, it must tell the resident during the period of delay and give a revised timescale for when it will respond.