Home Group Limited (202004272)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004272

Home Group Limited

15 March 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 residents 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 the landlord’s response to the residents’ requests to have a mobility scooter and ramp removed from the rear yard.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The residents have an assured tenancy with the landlord that started in 2002. The property is a one‑bedroom first floor flat in a four-storey terraced building which contains two self-contained flats. There is a shared rear yard where the neighbour stores their mobility scooter when it is not in use. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents.
  2. The National Fire Chiefs Council issues mobility scooter guidance for residential buildings. It outlines the considerations for responsible persons of residential buildings to help establish the safe use, storage and charging of mobility scooters. It focusses on commonly found situations. There may be alternative solutions of achieving the protections set out in this guide.
  3. The Equality Act 2010 imposes duties on landlords towards residents who are deemed to have a disability. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial” and “long-term” negative effect on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to a property. “Reasonable” means that a landlord can consider whether such an adjustment would be practical and/or affordable.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one and within twenty working days at stage two.

Summary of events

  1. On 28 July 2020 the local authority sent an email to the residents saying that on 8 July 2020 the local fire service had contacted them with regards to their complaint about the mobility scooter in the rear yard. The local authority said that it had provided the fire service with information on the layout of the rear yard and advised that it would not be in their remit to deal with this matter. The local authority also said it believed the residents then received a call from the fire service who advised they did not have any concerns about the mobility scooter and that, should it catch fire, the residents could use the front exit if they had to evacuate the building.
  2. On 29 March 2021 the landlord carried out a fire risk assessment. In relation to the mobility scooter stored on site, the report stated that the owner “charges a class 1/2 battery required for their mobility scooter. This will require a trickle charge charger to reduce the risk of the battery causing a fire”. This was noted as “high risk” and the report noted that such a risk should be dealt with within 45 days.
  3. On 20 April 2021 the residents raised a formal complaint with the landlord. There were two issues:
    1. Its failure to comply with a fire risk assessment which had found that keeping a mobility scooter in the yard to be high risk and said it must be removed. The residents said that the National Fire Chief Council’s mobility scooter guidance said that scooters must be stored six metres away from a property; the mobility scooter in question was stored just over two metres away (7 feet).
    2. Its intention to install a permanent ramp in the yard which the residents said was “unnecessary and contradictory”.
  4. On 11 May 2021 the landlord responded to the residents at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
    1. It had spoken to its fire safety department in in relation to the fire risk assessment of 29 March 2021. They had confirmed that the risk assessment had not identified any risk around the storage of the scooter or the need to remove the scooter from the yard.
    2. The issue was the type of charger and it was identified that a trickle charger would reduce the risk of the battery causing a fire.
    3. It confirmed it had inspected the charging facilities for the scooter and was satisfied that they now met the required specifications for fire safety.
    4. It had not yet made a final decision about the ramp but confirmed the local authority had granted permission to install the ramp. The ramp was planned to be installed as a disability adaptation to support the neighbour to gain access to the property with the aid of their mobility scooter. It added that the installation of the ramp would not alter the yard or the boundary of the property and would be secured to the ground with bolts.
  5. The landlord explained how the residents could escalate the complaint. The residents subsequently requested an escalation saying that they wanted the mobility scooter and ramp removed as they were a health and safety risk.
  6. On 21 June 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the complaint under its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
    1. It had not identified that the scooter needed to be removed in its fire risk assessment; only that an appropriate charger was installed (which had since been completed).
    2. It had reviewed the need for the tenant to have a mobility scooter in line with its aids and adaptations policy and was satisfied with the evidence provided. It had therefore given permission for the storage of the mobility scooter and would be proceeding with the installation of a more secure ramp. It added that permission had been given for that from the local authority.
    3. It acknowledged that its stage one complaint response had been delayed by five working days and offered a discretionary compensation payment of £35 for that service failure.
  7. The landlord signposted the residents to the Ombudsman.
  8. When the residents approached the Ombudsman, they said that they wanted the landlord to remove the fire risk, follow and apply the guidance from the National Fire Chief and enforce the removal of the items blocking the fire exits.

Assessment and findings

  1. The issue of concern raised during the fire risk assessment of 29 March 2021 was the charger for the mobility scooter and the report recommended that a trickle charger should be used to reduce the risk of fire. The landlord acted appropriately in ensuring itself that the method of charging the scooter was changed to comply with the issue raised in the fire risk assessment.
  2. It is clear the residents continue to believe that the mobility scooter is a risk, despite the involvement of the local fire service which, the evidence suggests, did not have any concerns about the scooter. However, the landlord’s decision that the mobility scooter is no longer a risk is reasonable based on the action taken following the fire risk assessment.
  3. It is noted that the information provided by the residents from the National Fire Chiefs Council is only a guide and therefore the landlord is under no obligation to follow it. The guidance itself notes that there would be alternative solutions of achieving the protections set out in the guide (paragraph 3).
  4. Under the Equality Act the landlord has an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to a property where a resident has a disability (paragraph 4). In this case, the landlord has acted appropriately by satisfying itself that the neighbour has a need for a mobility scooter. Its decision to install a ramp on the edge of the property is therefore reasonable to ensure that the neighbour can easily access the property.
  5. Given the above, the landlord’s decisions not to remove the ramp and/or the mobility scooter is reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents’ requests to have a mobility scooter and ramp removed from the rear yard.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately following the fire risk assessment to ensure that the method of charging the mobility scooter was changed in line with the recommendation of that assessment to reduce the risk of fire from the battery.
  2. The landlord had a duty to act to ensure it the neighbour could access the property easily; its decision to install the ramp to assist with that is reasonable.