Camden Council (201909199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909199

Camden Council

9 February 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. emergency signage, ducting and lighting installed by the landlord in communal areas of the building.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about emergency signage, ducting and lighting installed in the communal areas of the building.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, complaint 1(a) is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In correspondence to both the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the lighting and trunking that have been installed in the communal hallway. In addition, the resident is unhappy with the safety signage that has been fixed. To put things right, the resident would like the landlord to remove the lighting, the trunking and the signage. The resident would also like the old ‘push button’ style of lighting to be reinstated.
5. Paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
6. The works were carried out by the landlord’s contractor following a fire risk assessment, and with reference to fire safety legislation. It is noted that the resident is unhappy with the aesthetics of the works, and does not believe that all the elements are required by the legislation. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman does not have the power to order the landlord to undo works which were properly decided on, with fire safety in mind.
7. The authorities responsible for enforcing fire safety usually conduct inspections where there are concerns that landlords have not been compliant, and residents are at risk. Given that the resident’s concerns are not related to risk, but rather the landlord’s interpretation and application of the relevant regulations and legislation, it would be more appropriate for his concerns to be referred to a court for further consideration.
8. Although the Ombudsman cannot order to landlord to remove or undo the works, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns that were raised by the resident.

Background and summary of events

9. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a first floor flat, in a converted property. The landlord is a local authority.
10. In 2018, the landlord’s contractor undertook fire risk assessment works within the resident’s building. On 28 October 2018, the resident wrote to the landlord’s Contracts Manager to raise concerns about signage that had been installed in the building. The resident said that he wished to know who had made the decision to install steel code signs on the electricity meter boxes, and for what reason they were required. The resident said that he also wished to query who had made the decision to install the “anti-smoking” signage, if it was required by fire safety regulations, and if so, which regulations.
11. The resident did not receive a response to his enquiries; and on 22 May 2019, he made a formal complaint to the landlord. In his correspondence, the resident said that between October and November 2018, the landlord’s contractors installed large lights, connecting metal piping on the lower hallway ceiling and fire signage in the lower and upper communal entrance hall at his address. The resident said that he had a number of concerns about this, including:
    1. That there was a lack of previous information, and “inadequate and misleading consultation” from the contractor. While the contractor had left leaflets informing the occupants of the stages of the proposed works, it had not given any details about the works themselves and that it was installing “large moon like lights”, metal piping and “large” signs in the communal hallway.
    2. The previous lights were “perfectly functioning”; however, the replacements provided lighting beyond what was required. In addition, the lights had an “unsightly appearance” and ruined the look of the communal hallway.
    3. Where the new light switch had been installed, marks had been left on the ceiling and the wallpaper had been ruined. Photographs were enclosed.
    4. While the contractor said that it was installing the lights on the landlord’s behalf, he had been unable to confirm that the installation had been approved. In addition, he could not find that the landlord’s Fire Safety Advisory Panel had approved or authorised the use of the lighting. He therefore wished to know whether the landlord was indeed responsible for the lighting that had been installed.
    5. He did not consider that the style of lighting was necessary – with reference to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
    6. He wished for the old lighting to be reinstated.
    7. Metal piping had been installed across the ceiling in the lower communal hallway in addition to the new lighting. This was “unsightly” and had not been painted over, or covered.
    8. The contractor had affixed two large signs. The resident said that he considered both of these to be “brash and unsightly”, in addition to being “out of keeping” with the hallway decorations. He was not aware off any statutory fire regulations which required the fixing of such signs.
12. In closing his complaint, the resident said that to put things right, he wished for the automatic lighting, metal piping and signs to be removed; and for the previous lighting be reinstated. He added that the landlord’s contact with the contractor should be reviewed as he was unhappy with its performance.
13. The resident subsequently chased a response from the landlord on 27 August. The resident advised that while he had received correspondence from the landlord on 13 May, this appeared to relate to a separate complaint. The resident therefore asked if the landlord could confirm that his stage one complaint in relation to the communal hallway lighting, piping and signage had been referred for investigation.
14. The landlord responded on 29 August and asked the resident to re-send the correspondence so that it could look into the matter further. On 4 September, the landlord apologised that it had not responded to the resident in line with its timescales, and advised that the relevant officers had been asked to respond within 10 working days.
15. On 15 October, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as he had yet to receive a response from the landlord. The resident also chased the matter with the landlord on 11 December 2019, and the landlord advised that it had received correspondence from the resident; however, this seemed to be a “statement” or “questions” as opposed to a complaint.
16. In February 2020, we contacted the landlord and asked if it could provide an update in relation to the resident’s complaint. We also contacted the resident and enquired whether he was still awaiting a response to his complaint. The landlord and the resident subsequently engaged in discussion in March 2020 and the resident confirmed with the landlord that his concerns about the lighting, metal piping and signage in the communal hallway had yet to be addressed. In May 2020, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that he was yet to receive a response to his formal complaint.
17. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 16 June. It said:
    1. Fire safety works were carried out the property as part of a wider contract with its contractor. The works included:
       1. Changing the front entrance doors to fire rated doors.
       2. Changing the communal lighting to emergency lighting. This was part of the new regulations, and new lights needed to be installed at each “change of direction” on a stairwell. This meant that the lights would come on during the day. The purpose of the lights was to help people evacuate the building in the event of a powercut or a fire. The lights used a “very minimal current” so they were not expensive to operate; and at the time that the lights were installed the specification was to install steel conduit in communal areas and escape routes.
       3. Installing fire detection systems in dwellings and communal areas. The fire detection systems it had been installing were linked to the communal alarm. If there happened to be a fire in one flat, the alarms would be triggered by heat and sound all alarms within the block to give other residents an early warning. These detection systems needed to be installed 300mm away from any lights, which is why the contractor had installed it near the door and not the light.
       4. Installing fire signage in communal areas. As part of the regulations, it had to install evacuation signage to all communal areas. This was to ensure that all residents were aware of the correct procedure, and to also help the emergency services in the event of a fire.
       5. Upgrading the electrical boxes in communal areas so that they were fire rated.
       6. Redecorating the communal areas with fire retardant paint. All communal areas had to be repainted with Class O paint – which was flame resistant – to slow the spread of fire to escape routes.
    2. The works which had been carried out were part of the new Fire Regulations which had to be implemented across all boroughs in London.
18. The resident wrote to the landlord’s complaints department the next day. He said that after 13 months, he had received a response to his complaint. However, no complaint reference had been provided. He added that he wished to “renew” his complaints regarding the lighting, piping and signage. The resident said:
    1. No concerns had been raised about the fire doors which had been installed.
    2. He had complained about a lack of consultation by the contractor in relation to the type of lighting that was to be installed. The resident said that the landlord had failed to address this at all within its response. The resident added that his specific concerns were in relation to the number of lights, and the “gigantic” size of them. The “unsightly” metal work was also a concern, and the landlord had failed to address these issues.
    3. The concerns about the fire detection systems had been raised in a separate letter.
    4. The installation of the signage was “totally unnecessary”. While the landlord had claimed that the signage was required by regulation, they did in fact state that signer was required to indicate “any emergency routes and exits”. The resident said that the property did not have any emergency routes, and there was only one exit via the front door to the communal hallway which was “perfectly obvious”.
    5. The “no smoking” sign in particular was “irrelevant” as nobody smoked in the building, and nobody would smoke in the communal hallway anyhow. As such, the signage was not authorised under the regulations and was “unsightly” and “unnecessary”.
    6. No complaint had been made regarding the electronic boxes.
    7. It had been claimed that the paint was flame resistant; however, it was not known what manufacture of paint had been used or if the claims were “correct”.
    8. He also wished to flag that the original complaint was sent on 22 May 2019, and it had taken the landlord some 13 months to issue a response. This was maladministration by the landlord, and he considered that compensation ought to be issued.
19. The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 3 July 2020. It said:
    1. As had been previously explained, light luminaires were to be installed at each “change of direction” as well as near each intersection of corridors, which is why there were four at the property.
    2. It was unable to do anything about the size of the lights as this was what had been agreed and specified by the local authority. All old push button/switched lights had been removed from every property. The regulations state that all lights need to come on automatically in the event of an emergency, without someone having to find the light switch in the dark which could cause delays on evacuation.
    3. Smoke-free legislation applied to all communal parts of residential and commercial properties. All communal areas must be smoke-free and this included: shared stairways in blocks of flats, lifts, areas where people may share a kitchen or bathroom and common parts in houses converted into flats.
    4. The law required smoke-free premises to display prominent ‘no smoking’ signs at each entrance. The resident’s property was located in a house of multiple occupancy and this was classed as a commercial premises. Commercial premises were required to display a Fire Action Notice – and it was recommended that these should be displayed next to every fire alarm call point – and every final exit door – where they were likely to be seen in the event of a fire.
    5. The paint that had been used was a flame retardant coating that had been manufactured by a named brand. The rand had certified and signed off the paint.
20. The resident responded to the landlord on 6 July and said he wished to query why the same member of staff had issued the further complaint response. He added that he was of the opinion that the complaint should have been reviewed by an officer who had not been previous in the complaint and original investigation. The resident also asked the landlord to confirm if this was the stage two response.
21. The landlord responded on 15 July. It said that it had recently changed its complaints policy, and this provided it with the opportunity to work with services in addressing issues where possible before they were escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. Having considered the response that was issued on 3 July, it did not believe that a review investigation would arrive at a differing decision. It was satisfied that the response provided its position on matters, and that the resident could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
22. The Ombudsman sought clarification from the landlord in August 2020. The landlord confirmed with the Ombudsman on 14 August that the response of 3 July was not a stage two response; however, it was unsure if it would escalate the complaint given the responses the resident had received to date. Following further discussion with this Service, the landlord did subsequently issue a formal complaint response on 17 March 2021. It said:
    1. The ducting/trunking may not have been to the liking of all residents; however, it was compliant with fire safety regulations with regards to the enclosure of ceiling mounted wiring within metal trunking or conduit, fixed with metal clips.
    2. It was sorry that the resident found the trunking to be unsightly; however, safety was its primary concern.
    3. The signage was also clear and compliant with safety guidance. While the resident may have found it unsightly, once again, safety was the primary concern.
    4. It noted the resident’s concerns about the lighting – and had reviewed his photographs. However, it considered that the lighting gave a “good level of illumination”, which was its primary concern. It appreciated the residents concern about the effect upon the décor; however, it did not consider that this was evidence of service failure.
    5. If the resident remained unhappy, he could refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. On 29 April, the resident provided the Ombudsman with a detailed letter setting out why he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns. He said:
    1. His complaint to the landlord had been ignored for 13 months. In addition, when the landlord did reply, it did not give any explanation for the delay.
    2. The same named member of staff had responded to his enquiries and concerns, and he considered this to be a conflict of interest.
    3. There was a lack of information and consultation before the works began. This had not been addressed by the landlord.
    4. The contractor had claimed that the landlord had approved of the lights; however, the landlord had not evidenced this.  The hallway had been adequately lit beforehand, and he therefore requested the removal of the lighting and the installation of something “more in keeping” with the premises.
    5. He wished for the trunking to be removed, or covered in a manner that was in keeping with the hallway and its features.
    6. He did not consider that the signage was required by law. There were no signs previously; and as he could not find evidence that the landlord had approved the signs, it appeared that the contactor was responsible for it without landlord instruction or approval.

LACoRS Guidance

24. LACoRS Guidance (the guidance) is national fire safety guidance in residential accommodation. The guidance has been created for landlords and gives information about how to carry out fire risk assessments, and what measures are deemed necessary and/or suitable for different types of residential premises.
25. The guidance states as follows in relation to emergency escape route lighting – “for conventional lighting, most existing arrangements will be adequate”. This is so long as the switch/controls are “obvious, simple and visible under all conditions”, switches are located on every landing in a convenient position; and the lighting circuit used should be such that one switch or control will illuminate the entire route. It states that “the rule is that it should never be necessary to search for switches”.
26. In addition, the guidance states that “(emergency lighting) will automatically illuminate upon the failure of the power supply to the conventional artificial lighting”. The circumstances in which it must do so include:
    1. Illuminating the escape route to assist the occupants to move easily to exits and a place of safety.
    2. Highlighting any hazards such as stairs and changes in floor level or direction.
27. With regards to the positioning of the luminaires, the guidance states that they should be sited in the following positions:
    1. Near any intersection of corridors.
    2. Above each final exit door.
    3. Near each change of direction (other than on a stairway).
    4. Within each stairway so that each flight of stairs receives direct light.
    5. Near any change of floor level.
    6. Near each fire alarm call point.
    7. Near fire fighting equipment.
28. In relation to signage, the guidance states – “The need for clear information should be balanced with the desire to maintain a homely environment”. It adds that when determining if signage should be required, consideration should be given to the following criteria:
    1. Whether all occupiers were familiar with the escape route.
    2. Which route offered the shortest distance.
    3. Whether there were any changes in direction in corridors, stairways or open spaces that formed part of the escape route.
    4. Whether there was a choice of escape route.
    5. Whether there were any areas where confusion may occur when exiting the building.
    6. If there were any facilities or equipment provided for fire safety that could need appropriate signage.
29. The guidance continues by explaining that signage may not be necessary in smaller shared houses, or Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) with simple escape routes. However, if confusion for any reason may occur, the final exit should be provided with a sign. Additionally, in larger HMOs (of more than three storeys), those with unusual layouts or multiple exists, signage will be required.
30. The guidance also provides further detail and information about what the signs should look like- with reference to the Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 and where they should be fixed.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

31. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure (the policy) that was in force at the time of the complaint states that its aim is to resolve complaints “as quickly and as simply as possible”. If a complaint has not been dealt with satisfactorily, then the formal procedure is started.
32. The policy details that the complaints procedure has two stages. Stage one – local resolution – where the complaint is dealt with by the officers and managers responsible for the service. Stage two – the review or appeal stage. At stage two, the complaint is dealt with by an officer not previously involved. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can refer the complaint to the Ombudsman for independent review.
33. With regards to timescales, the policy states that complaint correspondence will be acknowledged within two working days at all stages. A stage one response will be provided within 10 working days; and a stage two response within 25 working days.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns

34. When considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the landlord complied with its duties and obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant policies and procedures.
35. In response to the resident’s concerns about the works that had been undertaken within the communal hallway, the landlord provided a detailed response explaining each element of the works. The landlord appropriately explained why the works had to be undertaken too, with reference to the relevant regulations. Within its second response regarding the matter, the landlord provided additional information and clarification to address some of the specific concerns that the resident had raised. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided a clear explanation that mirrored many of the points detailed in the guidance.
36. It is acknowledged that the resident feels strongly about the works that were undertaken, and that he has concerns that the lights, signage and trunking are not in keeping with the décor in the communal hallway. However, from the evidence that is available, the landlord appropriately explained the reasons behind the changes, and that while the resident may not have approved of the aesthetics of the works, resident safety was its primary concern.
37. In relation to the signage, the guidance explains the criteria that landlord should take into consideration when deciding on whether to fix signage within certain properties. The guidance does not state that signage should not be used in particular circumstances, rather that a landlord should take a balanced approach when deciding how to proceed. As such, the landlord is entitled to use its discretion in such circumstances. Given the specific concerns raised by the resident, it may have been helpful for the landlord to explain the decision-making process behind the signage – with reference to the guidance. However, that it did not do so was a shortcoming in its response as opposed to a failing.
38. There was no obligation on the landlord to consult the resident about the works prior to them being undertaken, or to share any details of the communications and plans that had been agreed with the contractor regarding the works. As such, while the resident has concerns about the lack of consultation – or the lack of information provided by the contractor – this was not a failing by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify this – and to address the resident’s concerns about this – when it responded to the complaint. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity to try to resolve some of the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s complaint handling

39. The resident first raised some queries about aspects of the fire safety works on 28 October 2018; however, his correspondence was not responded to. The resident subsequently raised further concerns about the works as a formal complaint on 22 May 2019, and the landlord did not reply to this until 16 June 2020 – following involvement from this Service.
40. When the landlord initially responded to the resident on 16 June 2020, it would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge that it had taken approximately 13 months for it respond, and to try to put things right. That the landlord did not was a failing in the circumstances, and a missed opportunity to put things right. In addition, while the landlord did provide a detailed response to the resident’s concerns in relation to the works themselves, the landlord did not address some of the resident’s queries. For example, as detailed above, no response was provided to the resident’s concerns about a lack of consultation. These were also not addressed in the further response that was sent by the landlord on 3 July.
41. The evidence shows that there was some confusion surrounding whether or not the complaints procedure had been exhausted following the landlord’s second response in July 2020. The resident believed the landlord’s replies of 16 June and 3 July to be complaint responses; and as such, was understandably concerned that the same member of staff had issued the further response to his additional queries and “renewed” complaint.
42. It is not clear why the landlord did not treat the resident’s correspondence as a complaint given that he had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the works. However, given that the landlord had chosen not to deal with the matter through its formal complaints procedure, it would have been appropriate to explain this – together with the reasons why – and to provide the resident with information about what he could do if he remained unhappy with the two responses he had received. The landlord should reasonably have acknowledged this and provided further explanation about how it had handled the resident’s correspondence when it issued the stage two response in March 2021. That it did not was a failing in the circumstances.
43. As such, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in keeping with the procedure set out in its policy, as detailed above, and has been the cause of confusion and inconvenience to the resident. It follows that overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was inappropriate and it would be reasonable for the landlord to take steps now to try to put things right.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the lighting, trunking and signage works undertaken at the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

45. In response to the resident’s concerns about the fire safety works that had been undertaken, the landlord appropriately explained each element of the works and why they were required with reference to the relevant legislation. It may have been helpful for the landlord to discuss the signage further – with reference to the guidance. However, that it did not was not a failing in the circumstances.
46. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was inappropriate. It delayed in responding to the resident’s concerns, and failed to acknowledge the inconvenience that had been caused as a result. The landlord also departed from the procedure detailed in the policy, without explanation, and this resulted in confusion about whether or not the complaints procedure had been exhausted. In addition, the landlord failed to address some of the concerns that had been raised by the resident.

Orders

47. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience he was caused by the complaint handling failures in this case.