Ability Housing Association (202509686)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a supported housing building, the landlord provides a care and support service to him. The building is managed by a separate freeholder. He complained about the landlord’s management of fire safety and ventilation within the building as well as about the support service it provides.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Fire safety concerns.
   2. Concerns about inadequate ventilation and excessive heat in the property.
   3. Concerns about the care and support package provided by the landlord.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Fire safety concerns
   2. Concerns about inadequate ventilation and excessive heat in the property.
   3. Associated complaint.
4. The complaint about the resident’s care and support package is outside of our jurisdiction.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of fire safety

5. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and took proportionate action to address the issues he reported in line with its fire safety policy.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about inadequate ventilation and excessive heat

6. The landlord took prompt action to request the repair to the ventilation of the communal laundry. When the resident reported further concerns it took appropriate action to attempt to arrange an inspection of the property, but he did not allow access.

The landlord’s handling of the care and support package

7. The resident’s care and support package is funded by the local authority and so is outside of the landlord’s housing management activities. The complaint falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord issued both of its responses in line with the timescales of its complaint handling policy. Its response addressed all points of the resident’s complaint and gave clear reason for these.

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.

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.

9. The landlord’s fire safety policy says that it will conduct regular audits and conduct fire risk assessments policy for properties it owns, including supported accommodation. Its policy also specifies it will continually monitor compliance and keep accurate records.
10. Prior to the resident’s complaint there is evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment for the building in July 2024. It concluded the were no atypical fire hazards for the type of property, all potential hazards were appropriately controlled and a fire was unlikely to result in serious injury or death to an occupant.
11. As part of the resident’s complaint he provided photographs of fire doors within the building which he said had been wedged open by other occupants. He did not provide further context for these photographs in his complaint. As part of the landlord’s response it acknowledged the photographs the resident provided and said it had briefed its on-site staff on the importance of keeping these closed at all times when not in use and to monitor the situation to prevent future occurrences. As there is no evidence the issue was more than a one-off incident this was a proportionate response.
12. The landlord said it had reviewed the fire safety documentation on 7 November 2024 and not found any evidence these were inaccurate. It advised the resident if he had further information about this it would take further action. He sent an email on 14 November 2024 explaining where the outdated fire safety notice was and it confirmed on 23 November 2024 it would update this. Whilst there may have been a shortcoming in its initial review not identifying this it acted promptly once he provided further evidence of his concerns.
13. The resident did not re-raise his concerns about fire safety in his escalation request. From the records the landlord continued to conduct fire risk assessments and audits in line with its policy throughout 2025 and these did not identify a repeat of the concerns he raised. As such, there was no maladministration in its handling of this complaint aspect.

What we have not investigated

14. The resident’s complaint about the ventilation within the building included complaints about how the structure of the building and its communal facilities affected this. The landlord told us it had responsibility for carrying out repairs to the communal areas. However, it said any structural alterations or repairs to the building would be responsibility of the freeholder. The freeholder is a member landlord of our scheme but there is no evidence the resident has completed their complaints process separately. We have no power to investigate complaints which a landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the freeholder’s handling of his concerns about the structure of the building.
15. The resident also said the issues with ventilation and excessive heat had affected his physical and mental health, such as experiencing fainting episodes and falls. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it may last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

16. The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs and response times based on risk. Its policy does not specify how it categorises repairs in relation to ventilation issues but for most communal repairs it states it will attend within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
17. In the resident’s complaint he said in general terms the communal laundry room affected under his flat affected the heat and ventilation within and he had been reporting this since 2021. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it had no record of him raising a concern about ventilation before his complaint. From the available records we also have not seen evidence of him raising this concern before his complaint on 29 October 2024.
18. As part of the landlord’s response it inspected the communal laundry room on 7 November 2024. It told the resident on 23 November 2024 that it had identified the ventilation fan was not functioning correctly and it had raised a repair to resolve this. This was a reasonable response. However, due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen evidence of when it completed the repair to the laundry room extractor fan and if this was within 28 calendar days in line with its policy.
19. There is no record the resident contacted the landlord again after 23 November 2024 until 10 March 2025 when he made his escalation request. As part of this he stated that as well as the structural issues the ventilation within the property was insufficient to reduce moisture and heat. The landlord said it attempted to visit him twice within March 2025 to inspect the property to inspect but he refused access on both occasions. Whilst this approach would be in line with its repair policy and its timescales we have not seen any records to show when these attempted inspections took place. Though we cannot take a view on whether or not these happened this is a records management issue, which is a shortcoming.
20. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that based on a review of similar flats within the building it considered the layout and extractor devices present would provide adequate ventilation and heat control. It explained to the resident it would be willing to arrange a ventilation and condition survey for the property if he was willing to provide access and it would arrange this as soon as possible. There is no evidence he responded to this. In our view its offer of an inspection was suitable to attempt to resolve his concerns and so there has been no maladministration in its response to this part of his complaint.

21. As part of the resident’s complaint he expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was not providing suitable care and support for him and he considered it was not acting in line with the Care Act 2014.
22. The resident’s care and support package is provided by both the landlord and the local authority. Both parties confirm that the care and support package he receives is funded by the local authority. As such the landlord’s administration of his care and support package is not part of its housing management activities.
23. In our view it is likely the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is the appropriate service to consider a complaint about the care and support package the resident receives from the local authority and the landlord.

24. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
25. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 October 2024. It acknowledged receipt of this on the same day. It then issued its stage 1 response on 7 November 2024, 7 working days later. This was in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
26. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 March 2025, which the landlord acknowledged on 12 March 2025. It issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2025, 19 working days after its acknowledgement. This was in line with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
27. With both stages of the complaint we did not see that it attempted to contact the resident to discuss his complaint before issuing its responses as its complaints policy says it should. In line with the Code landlords must provide residents with a complaint definition which sets out its understanding of the complaint.
28. Notwithstanding this, we have seen that the landlord’s responses to the resident were detailed and addressed each of the points he raised. It clearly explained its decision on each part of the complaint and its reasons for these which is consistent with the expectations of the Code. Therefore, we have not seen that its shortcoming in not providing a complaint definition constitutes maladministration as overall it acted in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. As set out previously there were occasions where the landlord did not have available records to show what actions it took in response to the requests for repairs. It should ensure that it creates clear records to show what actions or repairs it completes as part of an attendance. This will allow it to demonstrate a clear rationale for its actions to put things right and any relevant decisions.

Communication

30. Overall, the landlord showed an appropriate level of communication with the resident. There is evidence it kept in contact with him following his initial complaint to obtain further information about his concerns and to inform him about what it was doing to put things right.