Citizen Housing Group Limited (202434808)

Background

1. The resident reported issues with his front fire door not closing properly across August 2024 to September 2024. The resident has physical vulnerabilities and communication needs known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the front fire door.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front fire door.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front fire door

4. The landlord delayed completing the repair and did not communicate appropriately with the resident about the repair. Although it acted to acknowledge its poor communication, it did not recognise the full extent of its failures and the overall impact caused to the resident.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the complaint within its complaints policy timeframes and updated the resident where it required an extension of time.

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.

6. The landlord’s website refers to its repairs timeframe to complete non-emergency repairs within 25 working days. However, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not refer to this timeframe or a scale of priorities for its repairs.
7. Fire doors in flats should close automatically to prevent the spread of fire and smoke. This is a legal requirement under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2024 and the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022. Fire doors are essential for ensuring that flats are safe and that residents have enough time to evacuate during a fire.
8. In response to the resident’s report of defects with the fire door on 21 August 2024, the landlord assured him after this point that actions had been taken to ensure it was secure. It also confirmed this view in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. However, the evidence confirms that further repairs were required following the landlord’s attendance of 21 August 2024 to ensure the door was able to self-close. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware from this point forward that the door was not able to self-close. Given this, the landlord should have acknowledged that the door was not automatically closing as it should, and arranged for a repair to be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
9. The repair was completed on 1 October 2024. This was 30 working days after the landlord was made aware of the required follow-on repairs. This delay was unreasonable, and given the resident’s reported concerns around fire safety the repair should have been assigned a priority/urgency status.
10. The landlord did communicate to the resident that the fire door was still able to be closed and locked, but this had to be done manually while the repair was outstanding. Although, due to the potential safety risk of the fire door not adequately closing it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the repair and confirmed with the resident the timeframes for repair, but there is no evidence that it did. The landlord did not communicate a timeframe to the resident even where he requested it or in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable and meant the resident did not have clarity as to when the repair would be completed, adding to the resident’s distress.
11. The resident requested updates on at least 5 occasions across August to September 2024 before the landlord arranged an appointment to fix the fire door in October 2024. The landlord did supply some updates on the matter across the complaint, but these were prompted by the resident’s contact. The resident should not have had to raise the issue numerous times to get a repair date from the landlord. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to proactively communicate and adequately plan the repair. While the landlord did acknowledge that its communication could have been improved at stage 2, it did not go far enough to recognise the full detriment to the resident resulting from its poor communication. This was unreasonable.
12. The landlord also did not acknowledge the resident’s safety concerns raised in his complaint. The resident reported concerns about him and his partners safety in the event of a fire due to the door not closing properly. The resident and his partner have vulnerabilities known to the landlord, including a health condition affecting his breathing and restricted mobility. The resident emphasised that these vulnerabilities would make it difficult for him and his partner to evacuate in the event of a fire and this added to his distress over the time it took the landlord to complete the repair. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered these and whether any additional priority was to be given to the repair work. The landlord by not acknowledging the resident’s concerns, or alleviating these in anyway demonstrated an unempathetic approach to the situation.
13. Overall, the landlord did not acknowledge or attempt to alleviate the resident’s reported distress and inconvenience. It also did not acknowledge the impact caused by the lack of clarity around repair timeframes or its poor communication. Given the landlord has failed to recognise its failings and has made little attempt to put things right, we consider there was maladministration in its handling of the repairs. Although there was no permanent impact, the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident, and for this reason we consider the landlord must pay the resident £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact on the resident.

14. The resident raised his complaint on 1 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 October 2024 and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 October 2024. This was appropriately within its complaint policy timeframe of 10 working days.
15. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 October 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the following day. On 13 November 2024 the landlord requested an extension of 20 working days until 11 December 2024. The landlord produced its stage 2 response on 5 December 2024, after 16 working days. This was reasonable in the circumstances given that the landlord’s complaints policy allows for extensions up to 20 working days.
16. The landlord acted within its complaint policy timeframes and updated the resident where it required an extension of time. Overall, the landlord appropriately handled the complaint.

Learning

17. The landlord should assess repairs for their urgency/priority level, supply timeframes for its repairs, and appropriately communicate these timeframes to residents. It should also consider its residents’ vulnerabilities and how they may be impacted by the circumstances at hand.

Communication

18. It was positive that the landlord took account of the resident’s communication preference of phone calls. However, overall, the landlord’s communication was poor, while it advised at stage 2 that it had taken learnings from its poor communication, it is not evident that it had made any practical changes to the way it communicates with its resident. Given this, we have made a learning order above.