Jewish Community Housing Association Limited (202010619)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010619

Jewish Community Housing Association Limited

22 July 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 the landlord’s response to the resident about:
   1. The concerns about fire safety and the removal of fire extinguishers.
   2. The completion of a person-centred fire risk assessment.
   3. The request for a copy of a fire risk assessment.
   4. The deep cleans and the provision of hand sanitiser units at the block after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
   5. The guestroom cleanliness.
   6. The breakdown of lifts.
   7. The flooding into a communal area, the condition of a communal ceiling and the communal dial.
   8. The welfare checks and repairs contacts.
   9. The offer to transfer to another property and the related void works.
   10. The behaviour of staff and a tenant and the emergency contact arrangements.
   11. The reports about noise from a flat.
   12. The disrepair to a boundary wall.
   13. The sounding of a smoke alarm.
   14. The electric cupboard doors being left open.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and has vulnerabilities. The property is a flat in a sheltered housing block. The block has a manager and the landlord provides ‘low level’ housing support rather than care services.
4. At the time of initial complaints from the resident, the landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure. It responded at stage one within 10 working days; at stage two within 15 working days; and at stage three, provided a panel review meeting with board members, aimed to be within 20 days of the escalation request. This later changed to a two stage complaints procedure which removed the panel review stage.

Summary of events

The complaint chronology

5. In December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord about concerns with fire safety, fire extinguishers and a person centred fire risk assessment form; and about concerns with behaviour of staff and a tenant. On 20 January 2020, the landlord responded. The resident said this did not address all her emails, and she detailed tenant behaviour that she said intimidated her. She said she would leave it to the landlord to suggest solutions and remedies to resolve problems once and for all. On 27 January 2020, the landlord provided a further response that set out its position on a number of issues.
6. In February 2020, the resident complained again about the same tenant and asked the landlord to escalate a complaint about the conduct of the tenant and its staff. The landlord responded on 21 February 2020 and set out a position. The resident raised dissatisfaction with this and requested escalation, which the landlord acknowledged and said it would respond to.
7. On 9 March 2020, the landlord responded and advised that it was satisfied all concerns had been considered and responded to appropriately. The same day, the resident requested further escalation, as she felt the landlord was unwilling to listen to criticism about the block management and the fire safety concerns.
8. On 10 March 2020, the landlord confirmed the complaint would be escalated to a complaints panel. The landlord’s Covid-19 strategy subsequently advised that it would not convene complaints panels during the period and that it may have to defer conclusion of complaints. The landlord’s account advises it informed the resident of this on 19 March 2020 and said it would revert to her in due course.
9. In April and June 2020, the landlord responded to concerns the resident raised via an MP about deep cleans after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. It noted the fire safety issues were to be considered by a complaints panel, but it was unable to offer a date yet due to ongoing restrictions.
10. In October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to make reports about tenant behaviour by the same tenant, and about contractor actions that she said was harassment and constituted a hate crime. The landlord responded that it had passed the resident’s correspondence to its legal advisors which would write to her and her solicitor, due to the nature of the allegations. The resident’s account advises that the same month, her solicitors wrote a letter to the landlord about a transfer offer and the current status of her formal complaint. The landlord’s account advises it did not receive this at the time.
11. In November 2020, the resident stated concerns about fire safety; her person centred fire risk assessment; and a request for a copy of the block fire risk assessment, and said she would like to take issues to a more senior level.
12. On 1 December 2020, the landlord’s solicitors wrote to the resident and set out a position about issues with a guestroom; fire extinguisher removal; and cleanliness of the building. The resident responded to request a copy of a fire risk assessment she said she had been promised, and for a complaints panel to be scheduled. On 7 December 2020, the solicitors provided a further response to address queries about the fire extinguishers and a fire risk assessment. They noted the resident’s request for a complaints panel and explained this had been difficult to convene due to Covid-19 and confusion about her approach, but confirmed the landlord was willing to convene a remote panel. They advised that to do this, the resident needed to set out the issues she wished to be considered.
13. Later in December 2020, the resident submitted a 400 page bundle that detailed the complaints she had about her landlord, and emailed in January and February 2021 to add information. In February 2021, the landlord advised that it would need time to review the information, then in early March 2021 said it would respond by 15 March 2021. On 15 March 2021, the landlord then issued a final response which set out its position on the issues raised in the complaint. On 19 March 2021, the landlord confirmed that the resident could bring the complaint to this Service, after she raised dissatisfaction with the response and requested a panel hearing.
14. On 6 April 2021, the resident raised concerns about a smoke alarm and the landlord responded on 9 April 2021. On 5 July 2021, the landlord provided a further response that addressed a smoke alarm and electric cupboard doors being left open, and accepted that the resident wished these to be included in its final complaint response.

The concerns about fire safety and the removal of fire extinguishers

15. The landlord removed most communal fire extinguishers from its properties, which an October 2019 newsletter communicated was at the recommendation of the fire service and fire risk assessors. The newsletter stated some fire extinguishers would remain that only staff trained in their use should use. The newsletter gave advice on what tenants should do if there was a fire in their flat or another part of the building. The resident has raised concern about the removal, which includes this affects ability to extinguish fires on upper floors.
16. In November 2019, the block was visited by the local authority environmental health team, following the resident’s report that there were insufficient fire extinguishers and fire exits. The landlord notes it was informed that fire measures in place were satisfactory, and that the matter was referred to the fire service to confirm this conclusion. The local authority and the resident subsequently contacted the fire service without reply, however the resident’s account advises that the fire service later carried out a check of the block, after which there is no evidence the landlord was instructed to take further action by the fire service.
17. In December 2019, the resident raised concern to the landlord about the fire extinguisher removal, and was informed this was in line with fire service regulations and a fire risk assessment (FRA). In a January 2020 complaint response, the landlord noted its previous explanation and restated this. In a further March 2020 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident’s concerns had been appropriately addressed, and that it would await contact from the fire service if they wished to pursue the issue.
18. In October 2020, an independent fire risk assessment (FRA) was carried out at the block. The FRA noted that occupants most at risk of fire at the block were mobility impaired occupants, for whom person centred fire risk assessments were held in a communal area. The FRA identified no issues with fire exits and evacuation procedures. The FRA confirmed there were fire doors for all doors that were expected to be fire resistant, and identified no issues with door gaps. The FRA identified no issues with the provision of fire extinguishers at the block. The FRA noted guidance that communal fire extinguishers was not required/desirable for ‘specialised housing,’ but noted those present for staff use were reasonable given the block was staffed during the day.
19. In November 2020, the resident restated concerns about the fire extinguishers, and in a December 2020 response via the landlord’s solicitors, she was asked to refrain from repeated requests to reinstate the fire extinguishers. They enclosed a copy of the October 2019 newsletter that communicated the fire extinguishers removal, and enclosed a copy of correspondence in November 2019 that noted the local authority was satisfied with fire measures in place. The resident was recommended to report any concerns about the building safety to the fire service.
20. The resident complained about lack of response from the fire service and lack of action for fire safety issues at the block, that included door gaps and a lock on the door of a ‘responsible tenant’ which she felt could hinder them in an emergency evacuation. She complained the evacuation procedure was silent on what vulnerable tenants should do in the event of a fire, and what more able and willing tenants could do to help them. She complained about the removal of most of the fire extinguishers and a lack of redecoration of walls where these had been; and she requested for fire extinguishers to be reinstated and to be trained how to use them.
21. The landlord’s final response advised that it carried out annual fire risk assessments and implemented any recommendations made. It referred to previous responses for its position in respect to fire safety, and referred the resident to the fire service about their lack of response. It advised that the ‘responsible tenant’ would have no role in a fire and tenants were expected to use a pull cord that would result in attendance by the fire service, to evacuate the building taking into account vulnerable tenants and the nature of the incident. It advised that communal fire extinguisher removal was based on guidance that said they were ‘usually inappropriate’ in sheltered housing, and explained there was an increased risk if tenants used them. It concluded that fire extinguishers would not be reinstated. It acknowledged the resident requested redecoration of areas where extinguishers were removed, and confirmed that this would be done.

The completion of a person-centred fire risk assessment

22. The landlord completes risk assessments for individual tenants, which is in line with fire sector guidance for sheltered housing landlords to consider ‘person centred fire risk.’ These are stored in a communal area with other block information for consultation by emergency services in emergencies. In December 2019, the resident was provided a copy of her own person-centred fire risk assessment, which she complained was completed without her knowledge, involvement or reference to her support plan. She raised concern that the way the form was completed meant she would not be treated as a tenant with vulnerabilities in the event of a fire, and put her at risk. She also raised concern about the landlord’s risk assessments of other tenants.
23. In a January 2020 response, the landlord offered to request for the fire service to visit to assess adaptations required for her in an emergency. In regards to other residents, it said its staff knew them well enough to complete the form appropriately. In June 2020, the landlord noted that recent comments from the resident about the person-centred fire risk assessment would be considered by the complaints panel. In November 2020, the resident stated concerns about the completion of her person centred fire risk assessment form and about the form having not been re-completed.
24. The resident complained the landlord falsified her assessment, as it omitted health issues it knew she had. The landlord’s final response explained the form was part of an exercise to capture a snapshot of evacuation risks for all tenants, and was based on information on file and staff judgement that the resident could evacuate the building in event of a fire, since she entered and exited the building daily. It noted that staff had previously offered to arrange for the fire service to assess her circumstances. It disputed the form was falsified, however it acknowledged the resident felt it was not person centred enough and it offered to complete a new assessment with her.

The request for a copy of a fire risk assessment

25. In January 2020, the resident requested a copy of the block fire risk assessment (FRA). The landlord responded that as the last FRA was completed some months prior, it believed it would be more appropriate to share the FRA when it had been reviewed and updated. It advised that if the resident had any concerns about safety she should report these to specific staff or the fire service.
26. The resident complained about not being provided the FRA, which she understood she was entitled to under her tenancy agreement. The landlord’s final response apologised that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this had not been revised to a more user friendly format. It said that if the resident was concerned about fire safety implementation, she should contact the fire service to assess if fire regulations were complied with.

The deep cleans and the provision of hand sanitiser units at the block after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic

27. The landlord was provided guidance about Covid-19 by a consultant from 28 February 2020, and wrote to residents on 16 March 2020 that it would arrange for weekly building deep cleans and inform them when these would commence. On 30 March 2020, the resident queried when the deep cleaning would start at her block. The landlord’s response is unclear after internal enquiries and the resident contacted her MP in April 2020. She reported that a neighbour had recently died from Covid-19, and raised concern that before and since this, the landlord had not carried out deep cleans or informed residents when they would occur. The resident raised concern about the impact on the health of her and the deceased tenant, and raised wider concern about the block cleanliness for which she supplied photographs.
28. The landlord took steps to liaise with its cleaning contractors to confirm information about deep cleans at the block, which included the frequency; the items deep cleaned; and the antibacterial and antiviral solutions used. The information provided advises that a focus of deep cleans were hard floors and high contact areas such as handles and buttons, in line with guidance the landlord received.
29. The landlord’s April 2020 response to the MP confirmed that deep cleans commenced on 23 March 2020 and occurred weekly. It advised that cleans were appropriate to the setting and appropriate cleaning fluids were used for the current Covid-19 pandemic. It said it had no record of other complaints about cleanliness, but it had requested an additional clean of lifts to provide reassurance for concerns about lift cleanliness. It advised that it could not identify whether issues in photographs were dirt or wear and tear, but it disputed the block was dirty and said some areas were shabby due to the block’s age. It advised that it would be inappropriate to speculate about the tenant’s death, and highlighted that there was staff the resident could raise queries to in future.
30. In June 2020, the resident contacted the MP again. She stated that the landlord continued to put her health and safety at risk by failing to carry out deep cleans, and suggested the deceased tenant might be alive if deep cleans had been conducted. The landlord’s response to the MP restated its April 2020 response in regard to the block cleanliness, and said it disputed it had placed her or any other tenant at an increased risk. In a December 2020 response via its solicitors, the landlord said that the cleaning of the building was carried out as stated at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, and it disagreed there had been any failure or lack of standards.
31. The resident noted that correspondence from the landlord in March 2020 stated that tenants would be informed when deep cleans would commence, and she complained she was never advised when the deep cleans would take place until she wrote to her MP about a failure to carry them out. The resident also complained about the length of time it took for the landlord to provide Covid-19 signs and hand sanitiser units, despite a neighbour dying as a result of Covid-19 (this investigation notes that in July 2020, the landlord informed residents that there had been delays sourcing supplies). She requested for sanitiser units to be installed on each floor and suggested that this be funded by donations the landlord received.
32. The landlord’s final response in regards to the deep cleans noted it had previously responded that photographs were unclear as to whether issues were dirt or wear and tear, disputed allegations that it was dirty, and acknowledged that some areas required cosmetic improvement. It noted it had confirmed that on 23 March 2020 deep cleans commenced which were carried out throughout the building and met required standards. It noted it was unaware of any issues about the cleaning standards at the block, no complaints were received before lockdown, and additional lift cleaning had been arranged after the review of the complaint. It advised that the deep cleaning schedule commenced a week after lockdown so it was unable to conclude that it failed to act in a timely manner and within guidelines.
33. The landlord’s final response in regards to the signs and hand sanitiser units noted it had written to residents in July 2020 to explain there was a general shortage in the first few months of lockdown. It said that once there were supplies, five units were fitted at the block. It said that, to provide reassurance, it would order two units so that there was one on each floor of the block. It explained that costs it incurred for managing Covid-19 were recharged to tenants, and would not be deducted from donations.

The guestroom cleanliness

34. The resident stayed in the block guestroom in October 2020 while her home was redecorated, prior to which the landlord said the room had been cleaned. Towards or at the end of her stay, she contacted her MP and reported that there was dried blood on a curtain; dirt on a doorframe; and bare wires protruding from a cable, which the landlord investigated. It noted the room was deep cleaned the previous month. It noted it was certain a curtain stain was not blood; had been there for a long time; and could not be removed by a dry clean. It noted a cable was a television wire, not a live wire. It noted front doors were checked and dirt was not found on them. In a December 2020 response via its solicitors, the landlord said it disputed allegations about the condition.
35. The resident subsequently complained about the issues, raised hygiene and health and safety concerns, and asked for tenants to be allowed to manage the block cleaning arrangements. The landlord’s final response noted the guestroom was freely provided to the resident during the period she redecorated her home, and it was confirmed to her before she moved in that the guestroom was cleaned. It noted there had been no mention of bloodstains during her stay and its solicitors had confirmed in correspondence that this was disputed. It said that the guestroom curtains were professionally laundered and it disputed allegations the resident’s health was put at risk. It advised that it had no plans for tenants to carry out the block cleaning and that it had cleaning contractors that had been risk assessed and insured to carry out cleaning duties that met service standards.

The breakdown of lifts

36. On 30 January 2020, the resident reported that a lift had been non-operational since the previous day. The landlord confirmed that contractors would attend the next day and noted that the other lift could be used in the meantime, which the resident acknowledged.
37. The resident complained that one or other of the two lifts at the block frequently broke down. She said this resulted in long waits for lifts to be repaired, which she believed was partly because they were not listed in the landlord’s ‘Right to Repair’ emergency and urgent repairs schedule. The resident detailed occasions the lifts had broken down in December 2019, January 2020, August 2020 and November 2020, and how she felt the landlord’s response to the reports was insufficient given the impact on vulnerable residents getting to and from their homes or being attended to in emergencies. The resident raised concern about the condition and cleanliness of the lifts, and requested that they be deep cleaned, replaced, kept clean and added to the ‘Right to Repair’ emergency and urgent repairs schedule.
38. The landlord’s final response advised it had checked repairs history, and that the lifts required new parts due to wear and tear but were not regularly breaking down. It said that when lifts broke down they were reported and repaired within agreed timescales, and an occasion when both lifts broke down was dealt with as an emergency within 24 hours. It advised there were no immediate plans to replace either of the lifts at the block.

The flooding into a communal area, the condition of a communal ceiling, and a communal dial.

39. The information provided advises that on 11 October 2020, an electrician attended in response to the resident’s reports of leaks in a communal area via a light fitting, and a plumber then attended the next day.
40. In October 2020, the resident noted in correspondence that the landlord had repainted a communal ceiling two years prior to cover a large damp patch, and said it now looked like the ceiling “might fall in.” The ceiling was located in a communal room that was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  The resident queried if she should report the issue to a regulator, or if the landlord would commit to resolving it in a specific timeframe.
41. The resident complained that floods occurred twice in twelve months in a main communal area, in November/December 2019 and in October 2020; complained she had reported the communal ceiling and received no reply, apart from the landlord’s solicitors warning her about making allegations; and complained about the disrepair of a communal thermostat dial, which from a photograph was taped together. She requested for the building to be independently inspected and the plumbing replaced. She requested for the ceiling to be added to a ‘Right to Repair’ list, to be inspected, and for ‘reasonable recommendations’ to be made that took into account vulnerable tenants’ use of the communal area. She also requested for the communal dial to be repaired.
42. The landlord’s final response advised that the flooding was from a flat above, not due to its neglect, and was rectified within service timescales. It advised that the condition of the building, plumbing and electrics were regularly checked and it had no plans to change the plumbing. It advised that it would not arrange an inspection by an independent building surveyor but it would arrange for the communal ceiling to be inspected and redecorated, and for the dial to be repaired within 28 days. The landlord apologised that the resident did not feel repairs were proactively managed and advised that staff inspected weekly to report repairs. It noted that since the Covid-19 pandemic some repairs were limited to emergencies due to restrictions. It advised that improvement of its communication in respect to repairs was a current priority. It noted that residents may approach their MP, but suggested that housing or repairs staff could be contacted if a repair was outstanding.

The welfare checks and repairs contacts

43. The resident says that she requested for the landlord’s welfare checks and repairs contacts to be done in the afternoon, due to an impaired ability to function in the morning.
44. In August 2020, the resident made a report about staff who had called her and banged on her door after 12pm. In October 2020, the resident made reports that before 1pm, staff had asked her to respond to an email welfare check and repeatedly buzzed her intercom, and its contractor had attempted to call her multiple times.
45. The landlord investigated reports and informed the resident of outcome to investigations. It noted no timeframe was given in the email for a response to welfare checks, and a delivery driver had buzzed her number, not staff. The information provided advises the landlord established contactors did not have instruction about when to call the resident; arranged for a note to be placed on their system; and highlighted the resident’s preferences on other occasions.
46. In late October 2020, the resident reported that despite assurances, a contractor had attended prior to the agreed time, and on another occasion, had accessed her property without permission when her decorators were there. The information provided advises that the landlord took steps to investigate these and there were no further reports.
47. In December 2020, the resident requested for welfare checks carried out by the landlord’s staff to be done in the afternoon. The landlord explained how this was not possible and offered for the welfare checks to be carried out by its contractor.
48. The resident subsequently complained that a consistent ignoring of her request not to be contacted in the morning was harassment, and she requested to be compensated for the distress and the impact on her mental health.
49. The landlord’s final response apologised that the resident felt she was bullied and harassed, and said it could not find evidence to support this after reviewing information. It advised that it had listened to the request to change the checks to the afternoon, and confirmed that it would arrange for these to be carried out in the afternoon by its contractor rather than by its staff. It noted that contractors asked not to contact the resident before 1.30pm had later called her at 1pm, which it advised it had addressed and apologised for at the time and was not aware of any further incidents. It advised this was an administrative error and appointments would be booked after 1.30pm in future. It noted it had internally discussed an incident the resident mentioned and allegations such as the door being heavily banged were denied.

The offer to transfer to another property and the related void works

50. In January 2019, the resident submitted a housing application to move, and in April 2020, she then enquired if she could move into a vacant property at her block. The landlord confirmed that it would consider the request but noted Covid-19 restrictions restricted a move at that point.
51. In July 2020, the resident was offered the property she had expressed interest in. She was informed the property would be decorated and cleaned in line with the landlord’s lettable standard; a viewing would take place when the property was ready for letting; and it would be let ‘as seen’ and additional fittings, fixtures and goods would not be provided. The resident was informed it was the only offer that the landlord would make, based on her request for the specific property, and that it was made to try to establish a more positive relationship.
52. The resident states that when she viewed the property around 19 August 2020, she felt it had not been cleaned (which was of concern due to Covid-19) and she also had concerns with the kitchen layout; was unhappy that some of the former tenant’s soft furnishings and fittings were still present; and felt there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed before she moved in. In addition to a deep clean of each room, the resident requested that the landlord take action for around thirty items.
53. The landlord responded on 28 August 2020 about some actions it would take, which included cleaning; removal of carpets and blinds and replacement of lampshades; and removal of a cupboard to allow space for a fridge-freezer. It set out its position on other issues, which included explanation that kitchens and bathrooms deemed to have more than five years life would not be replaced (this investigation notes that the landlord’s Covid-19 strategy also suspended all major works programmes apart from a window replacement programme). The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she wished to accept the property.
54. The resident responded on 1 September 2020 that she would accept the property on seven conditions, that included for the bathroom to be upgraded; for some condensation issues to be addressed; for her and another party to be allowed to view the flat after completion of works and before signing the tenancy agreement; and for action to be taken for around 18 items.
55. The landlord’s response on 7 September 2020 agreed that the resident could view the property with another party, and set out its position on other issues raised, which included that previous correspondence had confirmed the works it intended to carry out. The resident responded on 9 September 2020 that she was unable to accept the offer, for reasons that included a concern about the amount of money she would have to invest to bring the bathroom and kitchen into good repair.
56. The resident then advises that two weeks later, she went into the property as the door was open and observed there was space for a fridge-freezer, blinds and lampshades had been removed, some window condensation had been treated and the bathroom floor had improved. The resident emailed the landlord that she would accept the property if it was willing to re-offer it, and when it did not respond she raised dissatisfaction that it had not let her view the flat now that it had completed works it had refused or been silent on.
57. The landlord responded that previously advised works had been completed, and it had said the resident could revisit with another party. It noted that she had declined the property and it had now been viewed and accepted by the next applicant on its housing waiting list.
58. The resident complained there was a difference between the property condition conveyed to her and the property condition that was arranged for the successful tenant; complained about the level of information provided about what works would be carried out; complained about a refusal to relocate the kitchen sink; and complained about a refusal to include the property in the upgrade programme. The resident provides information that her solicitor wrote to the landlord and asked for the property to be offered to her again, assuming it had not been allocated, which she complained about lack of a response to. The resident requested to be compensated for the cost of getting her solicitor to write to the landlord, and for the impact on her as a result of the lost opportunity to move.
59. The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor prior to its final response. It said on checking its records it had not received their letter until provided by the resident, but would investigate the matter as part of its review. The landlord’s final response advised that there were lettable standards for empty homes which it sought to meet. It advised there was no plan to replace the bathroom and kitchen before the resident was offered the property, and it did not replace the bathroom as the property was not currently on the major works programme and there was no significant damage to units. It noted the resident had provided feedback on what she had wanted to be included, and it had agreed if she wanted another party to carry out an inspection. It noted the resident was made the first offer on the empty flat; the offer was withdrawn after her refusal in writing that it would cost too much to bring it up to her own standards; no further works were included after the refusal of the property; and the property was offered to the next applicant on the list. It concluded there was no evidence its policies and procedures were not followed in respect to the matter.

The behaviour of staff and a tenant and the emergency contact arrangements

60. In January 2020, the resident raised concern to the landlord about a tenant who fulfilled a voluntary role at the block as an emergency contact and ‘responsible tenant, who she understood was ‘the assistant manager.’ She referred to a historic complaint in 2014 and detailed behaviour that had recently started, which involved the tenant speaking loudly to other individuals and staring at the resident intimidatingly. The resident raised concern about staff including who they lived with and their use of a laundry room. The landlord clarified that the tenant was not the assistant manager, and advised that they would continue as the ‘responsible tenant.’ The landlord set out its position on concerns about staff and made multiple offers to facilitate mediation between the resident and the staff.
61. In February 2020, the resident complained again the same tenant speaking loudly to other individuals and ignoring her, and the staff use of the laundry room, and asked the landlord to escalate a complaint about their conduct. In March 2020, the landlord responded and confirmed the tenant was not the assistant manager, could choose who they spoke to, and there was no evidence to take action against their tenancy. It considered the complaints about staff actions and confirmed that it could not identify behaviour that would constitute misconduct.
62. In December 2020, the resident reported that a parcel had been brought to her already opened. The CCTV was checked and it was established the parcel was opened by the tenant the resident had previously reported, and who fulfilled the voluntary role at the block as an emergency contact and ‘responsible tenant.’ The resident said she felt this was part of a vendetta the tenant had waged against her for the past nine years, and queried what action the landlord would take. The landlord noted it discussed the issue with the tenant, informed the resident that it would deal with the case, and asked her for the reference number of a report she had made to the police.
63. On 11 and 20 January 2021, the resident asked the landlord to confirm the outcome to her complaint about the tenant, whose behaviour she stated breached the tenancy obligation not to cause a nuisance. On 22 January 2021, the landlord responded that it understood the tenant had admitted the incident to the police. It advised that it would monitor the situation, but said it was not aware any further action was being taken and it had been assured there would be no repeat. The resident responded to raise dissatisfaction that the landlord had not addressed the issues about harassment by the tenant.
64. On 28 January 2021, the landlord responded after a review by more senior staff. It noted it had been assured there would be no repeat and it had said it would monitor the situation. It noted that the resident had not reported any other recent incidents, and noted that all historic allegations were dealt with at the time and were considered closed. It said that while it did not expect tenants to interfere with other people’s post, the isolated incident did not meet the threshold for it to take legal action.
65. In February 2021, the police contacted the landlord to further investigate the issue. The information provided advises that on 17 February 2021, the police concluded their involvement with an informal community resolution agreement with the tenant, in which they agreed not to open anyone else’s mail or contact the resident. The following day, the resident informed the landlord of this outcome, and asked it to confirm if the tenant would remain in their role as a ‘responsible tenant.’
66. The resident later complained that the tenant continued in a role as a ‘responsible tenant’ and emergency contact at the block, in spite of the ongoing harassment reports she had made about them for a number of years.
67. The landlord’s final response noted the issue was investigated by the police, the tenant admitted they opened the parcel and was cautioned, and it responded to the issue as a complaint in January 2021. It acknowledged that the resident’s post should not be tampered with by anyone at the scheme and it apologised for the inconvenience the issue caused. It advised that after a review of the information, the tenant concerned would no longer be a ‘responsible tenant’ for the scheme, and it detailed that for out of hours emergencies, tenants should now pull a cord for its contractor to risk assess the call and take action. The landlord later confirmed to the resident that the tenant has not been the ‘responsible tenant’ since March 2021.

The reports about noise from a flat

68. The resident made a report on 21 January 2021 that a door at an empty flat was being banged early in the morning, and she said other residents had heard voices coming from the flat in the evening. On 22 January 2021, the landlord advised this had been looked into and a property concerned was empty, but said it would send out letters to ask residents to keep noise to a minimum including when entering and exiting the building. The same day, the resident replied that the complaint had been mismanaged and that the landlord had not responded to a report that, when in the laundry room, other residents had heard shouting coming from the flat. On 28 January 2021, the landlord responded after a review by more senior staff. It said it felt its previous response covered the issues raised, as it had noted action taken; said the property was empty; and said it would investigate as far as possible where the noise may emanate from.
69. The landlord’s final response advised that it had checked CCTV and there was no evidence anyone was in the flat in question between hours mentioned. It also said that it could find no evidence of people using the laundry “and noise emitting from here” to support the resident’s claims. It advised that it would monitor the issue but noted the flat was close to an external door.

The disrepair to a boundary wall

70. The information provided advises that on 19 January 2021 a fence and wall were damaged by a vehicle. The following day, landlord staff attended to assess the issue and it was noted that the broken wall had been ‘sealed off’ by the local authority to make it safe for pedestrians. The issue was reported by the resident who queried when the repair would be done. The landlord internally discussed the matter and noted that the issue needed to be reported to its repairs department for masonry removal and to the police. It was also noted that an insurance claim may need to be made. In February 2021, the landlord obtained a quote from contractors to make good and reconstruct the wall.
71. On 22 January 2021, the resident complained that the landlord had not responded to her request to confirm the timeframe for when the wall would be repaired. On 28 January 2021, the landlord responded that the issue was only reported the previous week, and its staff and contractors were working to remedy the issue. It apologised that the timescale was currently unknown, apologised that this was not conveyed to the resident, and said once there was a date all residents would be notified.
72. The landlord’s final response on 15 March 2021 advised that it had contacted its insurers about the incident, and it confirmed the repair would be carried out within 28 days.

The sounding of a smoke alarm.

73. The information provided advises that on 2 April 2021, the resident’s smoke alarm malfunctioned and sounded for over seven hours before an engineer attended to turn it off. The resident raised concern on 6 April 2021 about the delay, staff being unable to provide an estimated time of arrival (ETA), and inhumane treatment. She queried why an ETA could not be provided and what the ETA should have been/should be.
74. The landlord’s response on 9 April 2021 noted that the day the issue occurred was a bank holiday, its contractors had reported the issue immediately, and the response time was within required 24 hour service timescales. It noted that staff had attempted to obtain an ETA but this was unable to be provided by the contractor.  The landlord advised that it was sorry to hear the alarm was set off and it acknowledged the annoyance and inconvenience it caused, but it concluded that it had no impact beyond these and there were no failures as the issue was responded to within contractual obligations and agreed timescales. The landlord’s final response on 5 July 2021 set out its position that its previous response had addressed the issues.

The electric cupboard doors being left open.

75. The resident has reported electric cupboard doors being left on a number of occasions, in respect to which information provided advises action has been taken to ensure they were closed. The cupboard doors appear to have mainly been left open when contractors have carried out works.
76. The landlord’s final response on 5 July 2021 advised that it had requested for contractors to be reminded to close doors when working at the block, and requested daily inspections to check the doors at the end of each day, which would be regularly monitored.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

77. This investigation understands that the resident is dissatisfied with many issues she has experienced at the block, which span at least nine years. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate all the complaints the resident has about her landlord, as a number of these are not within our role, expertise or jurisdiction.
78. The resident refers to historic matters which are not fully considered although they provide background and context, as formal complaints are normally expected to be made to a landlord within six months of when they occur; to exhaust a landlord’s complaints procedure; and to be brought to this Service within a reasonable timescale of exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation therefore focuses on from around mid-2019, from when recent substantive issues occurred, to March and July 2021, when recent complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
79. The resident was informed by this Service that we do not usually investigate complaints which relate to religious values; other tenants’ issues; and rent increases. This applies to issues raised about window cleaning, as this relates to other tenants’ concerns about window cleaning and the associated level of rent.
80. The resident complains about a number of other issues which this Service does not usually investigate, or have the authority or expertise to definitively decide upon and order action or compensation as the resident requests. These relate to complaints about hate crime; inhumane treatment; harassment; victimisation; the impact on physical or mental health; a landlord’s policies; solicitors not following their regulatory code; allocation of housing to other tenants; rehousing of other tenants; and the organisational nature of a landlord.
81. The resident makes some requests for outcomes which are not reasonable or in our authority to provide. These relate to requests to replace staff; to replace management; for regulatory and prosecution action in respect to the landlord and fire service’s handling of matters; and requests for actions from unrelated third parties such as the fire service. The resident is clearly concerned about the wider health and safety of tenants, and fire services are responsible to enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well a landlord is meeting regulatory standards, including wider fire safety obligations (although this Service will refer matters to the Regulator where considered appropriate).
82. The resident complains about the landlord’s response to a Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office investigates complaints about the handling of such requests and it is not this Service’s role to do so.
83. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaints, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions – which this assessment goes on to do.

The concerns about fire safety and the removal of fire extinguishers

84. The National Fire Chiefs Council guidance on specialised housing confirms that recurrent building fire risk assessments (FRAs) should be carried out to ensure that fire precautions are proportionate to the risk from fire. While the landlord has not supplied other FRAs, it supplies a copy of a FRA it conducted in October 2020, along with records to show ongoing procedures in place at the block for recent staff training; inspection of fire safety measures; independent inspection of the emergency lighting and fire alarm system; weekly and quarterly fire alarm tests; and a regular removal of lint from communal driers. The information provided shows the block has general fire safety notices which advise residents what to do in event of a fire, while the landlord has completed person-centred fire risk assessments for individual residents, which other than her own the resident would not be party to.
85. The FRA and the evidence available gives no reason to doubt that the landlord’s approach to fire safety at the block is not appropriate. These show that the landlord monitors fire safety in an ongoing way, which is appropriate. These also show there has been opportunity for issues such as evacuation procedures and fire resistance of doors to have been assessed by professional staff and contractors. While fire safety issues are of paramount importance, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinions of its staff and contractors, and this investigation notes that there is no evidence or opinion of an equivalent professional nature to support the resident’s own views in respect to fire safety.
86. The National Fire Chiefs Council guidance also advises that in sheltered housing, the provision of communal fire extinguishers is usually inappropriate, as it is not expected for residents to tackle a fire to make their escape, although provision of extinguishers for use by staff is normally appropriate. The guidance does not include residential floors among locations where fire extinguishers are advised. The guidance advises that where fire extinguishers are present, an FRA should consider if they are appropriate or if “they are, in fact, undesirable.”
87. While this investigation understands the resident’s concerns, this guidance and the October 2020 FRA shows that the communal fire extinguisher removal was not inappropriate, because this is in line with sheltered housing fire safety guidance that will have considered such concerns when it was formulated. The guidance does not require a landlord to wait for direct instruction from the fire service, and asks a landlord to consider the guidance and for an FRA to consider if communal fire extinguishers at a block are appropriate or undesirable. The decision by the landlord to remove a majority of communal fire extinguishers while leaving some for staff use is within the scope of the guidance and supported by the October 2020 FRA, which noted the guidance that communal fire extinguishers was not required but concluded that the extinguishers for staff use was reasonable given the block was staffed during the day. Overall, the removal was in line with appropriate guidance and is supported by an independent FRA which gives no reason to doubt that the landlord’s decision-making has not been appropriate. Further, while the resident contends a lack of consultation on the issue went against the tenancy agreement, there is no evidence for an obligation to consult on the specific matter, nor does resident consultation on sector and expert recommendation seem reasonable.

The completion of a person-centred fire risk assessment

88. The National Fire Chiefs Council guidance on specialised housing recommends for a landlord to carry out a person-centred fire risk assessment of anyone who is considered to be at a high risk from fire, that takes into account their mental capacity and physical agility. Where an assessment ticks that an individual has an increased fire risk; is less able to react to an alarm or fire; or has a reduced ability to escape, applicable actions can include contacting the fire service to arrange for a home safety visit.
89. The guidance advises that the assessment is intended only as a simple means for non-specialists to determine if additional fire precautions might be needed, including for those who may need assistance from emergency services to evacuate a building. The guidance advises that routine engagement with residents should allow a landlord to identify residents who need such an assessment; that assessments will normally be undertaken with residents themselves; and that wherever possible action plans for the most vulnerable residents should be discussed with them. The guidance advises that the person-centred approach is intended to particularly consider a resident’s likelihood that “they may start a fire, the potential for the fire to develop, their capability and mental capacity to respond to a warning of fire, and their ability to then escape from the fire.”
90. The landlord’s initial completion of the form was after it was party to information about the resident and engagement with her. This gave it opportunity to consider matters and to reasonably determine if it felt additional precautions were needed. The landlord’s initial completion of the form therefore appears reasonable and appears in line with the guidance approach, even if the resident has a different view on the conclusions the landlord reached. Further, while the resident raises concern about other tenants, the landlord has completed person-centred fire risk assessments for individual tenants for which the landlord would be expected to note and discuss any risk with the tenants or their representatives. There is no obligation for the resident or other tenants to be party to these as noted above, and these are mainly for the attention of the fire service. This investigation does acknowledge the concerns the resident raises, and (while this is something it is likely to be doing in line with guidance) a recommendation is made to the landlord to continue to review the person-centred fire risk assessments on an ongoing basis, to ensure these reflect individual tenants’ vulnerabilities and include appropriate action plans.
91. This investigation notes that the guidance does not require a landlord to complete the assessment with an individual, but does advise assessments are ‘normally’ undertaken with residents. Therefore, when the resident expressed initial dissatisfaction and concern about her assessment, the landlord could have offered to re-complete it with her earlier than its final response. However, its offer to contact the fire service to visit her was a reasonable response. The fire service were qualified to take a view on the matter, while the offer to arrange a fire service visit offered a similar outcome to if the assessment had been completed the way the resident thought it should have been (given an applicable action for completing the form differently is to contact the fire service to carry out a home visit).
92. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of this aspect was reasonable, as it offered a reasonable solution to the initial dissatisfaction with the assessment, and offered a further reasonable solution in its final response.

The request for a copy of a fire risk assessment

93. This investigation understands that there is no specific legal or tenancy obligation for a landlord to provide a FRA to residents, however it is good practise to do so and encouraged by the Ombudsman. Further, this investigation notes that there are local authorities and housing associations which proactively publish FRAs on their website.
94. The landlord’s response demonstrates it considered the request and set out its position. This investigation can appreciate FRAs can be complex documents, and the landlord’s explanation that it aims to supply the FRA to the resident once this is in a user friendly format seems reasonable and understandable. While this is the case, this investigation does recommend that the landlord provide the resident with the FRA, and review the practises of other landlords and how it can provide FRAs to its residents in a more timely way.

The deep cleans and the provision of hand sanitiser units at the block after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic

95. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about a lack of deep cleaning at the block, as it took contemporaneous steps to investigate and consider these, and confirmed with contractors that deep cleans had started and confirmed the nature of the deep cleans. This investigation notes that the deep cleans did not result in the level of cleanliness expected and concern was raised about floor mopping and short amounts of hoovering. However, the deep clean specification was in line with guidance the landlord received and reasonably focused on surfaces that would receive a large amount of contact from different individuals, rather than areas the resident highlights. Further, while she disputed deep cleans occurred, their focus on regularly used surfaces such as door handles means it is reasonable they may not have been immediately apparent. The landlord’s additional clean of lifts demonstrates that it considered the concerns and appropriately took further action where it acknowledged this may be applicable.
96. The landlord also responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about delays in provision of hand sanitiser units at the block. The resident first raised the issue in the December 2020 complaint. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation given the impact of Covid-19 on production, availability and demand for hygiene products, which is supported by contemporaneous communication from the landlord to residents about issues with supplies. It is not reasonable to find a service failing on the part of the landlord for the delay in provision of hand sanitiser units when this was reasonably out of its control, due to supply issues being widespread in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic.
97. While the above is the case, it is unclear that the landlord informed residents when deep cleans would commence, as communication to residents said it would. There appears no reason to doubt the landlord would commence deep cleans at the block, however since it gave the expectation it would say when these would start, it is understandable that the resident may have become concerned deep cleans had not started if there was no further communication on the issue as promised. It is also unclear if the resident received response to an enquiry at the end of March 2020 about when deep cleans would commence, prior to her contacting an MP. These do not lead this investigation to find a service failure, however a recommendation is made for the landlord to try to ensure it effectively manages resident expectations and communication.

The guestroom cleanliness

98. The information shows that the landlord considered the resident’s reports about a curtain stain, a wire and a doorframe, and concluded that it disputed that these were inappropriate and caused any risk to the resident.
99. It is not in this Service’s expertise to make decisions about the impact on a resident’s health, however the landlord’s response appears reasonable as it took the concerns seriously and considered each aspect. The landlord took reasonable steps to confirm that the curtain stain was an old one that it had not been possible to remove during cleans; that the wire was a television wire and not a live one; and that, in its view, the room was not dirty. The landlord’s conclusions appear reasonable as while the resident may have been distressed by the guestroom condition, it based these on first hand assessment of the condition. There is no evidence that the issues led to any serious detriment to the resident or were inappropriate to cause this Service to find a service failure. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the guestroom cleanliness in ways this Service would expect to see, as it took steps to investigate the reports and set out its position.

The breakdown of lifts

100.      The information shows that the landlord considered the resident’s reports and requests about the lifts, and concluded that that lifts were not regularly breaking down; were repaired within agreed timescales; and were not planned to be replaced. The landlord responded to the resident in an appropriate way, as it took steps to assess matters and set out a reasonable position.
101.      The general breakdown of lifts is not an unreasonable occurrence, and it is reasonable for a landlord to maintain lifts until they are beyond economical repair or have reached the end of their natural life. It is not clear how urgently the landlord treats lift breakdowns, however the information provided advises that lift breakdowns have been resolved within non-emergency repairs timeframes it would be reasonable for them to fall within. The information provided also advises that the landlord exercised appropriate discretion to expedite repairs in response to reports of breakdowns of both lifts at the block.
102.      It is not in this Service’s expertise to decide when lifts should be replaced and the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff in its decision-making for such matters. However, the timeframe in which repairs were completed and the frequency of lift breakdowns do not seem unreasonable, or suggest that the landlord was unreasonable to advise it had no plans to replace them.
103.      This investigation notes the resident’s request for lift repairs to be added to a ‘Right to Repair’ schedule. The ‘Right to Repair’ refers to regulations that legally only apply to local authorities and which set out specific repairs (which do not include lifts) that a local authority should complete within a prescribed time period. While only legally applying to local authorities, many housing associations reflect the repairs timeframes detailed in the regulations within their repairs policies. In light of this, there is no evidence that the landlord is obligated to add lift repairs to the ‘Right to Repair’ list.

The flooding into a communal area on two occasions, the condition of a communal ceiling and a communal dial

104.      While understandably inconvenient and distressing, the occurrence of floods is not an unusual or unreasonable occurrence in themselves to evidence a failing on the part of a landlord; however, a landlord should ensure it meets its obligations to resolve floods, and a landlord’s act or omission should not be the cause. The landlord’s repairs policy advises that issues that put health and safety at risk or affects the structure of the building, such as serious leaks, are treated as emergency repairs and should be made safe within 24 hours. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord caused the floods, and the information provided advises that it met its obligation to carry out repairs within 24 hours, through timely attendance of electricians and plumbers. This, and the occurrence of two floods around eleven months apart, does not reasonably evidence that the landlord should have considered and responded to the issue in a different way; nor does this reasonably evidence the need for an independent building inspection or replacement of the plumbing.
105.      The landlord’s response in respect to the communal ceiling was five months after this was raised, and this investigation would have liked to have seen evidence that the ceiling report was considered earlier. However, based on a review of information and photographs, there is no specific evidence that repairs to the ceiling were urgent. The action detailed in the landlord’s final response that it would inspect and redecorate the ceiling therefore seems reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the issue and the limited use of the communal room, which was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
106.      The landlord’s response in respect to the communal dial that it would repair the dial also seems reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the issue, and given this was first raised in the December 2020 complaint.
107.      This investigation notes the resident’s request for ceiling repairs to be added to a ‘Right to Repair’ schedule. As noted above, the ‘Right to Repair’ refers to regulations that legally only apply to local authorities and which set out specific repairs which do not include ceilings, so there is no evidence that the landlord is obligated to add ceiling repairs to the ‘Right to Repair’ list. The landlord’s obligations and repairs policy means any issues that pose an immediate danger to health and safety would be expected to be dealt with as an emergency and within 24 hours, which there is no evidence applies to this issue other than the resident’s opinion.

The welfare checks and repairs contacts

108.      The information provided shows that the landlord considered the resident’s requests to not be contacted in the morning and her allegations of harassment, and responded in a reasonable way. It is not in this Service’s authority to definitively decide if behaviour constitutes harassment.
109.      While the resident felt some welfare checks demanded a response in the morning, this investigation cannot see clear evidence for this. The landlord was customer focused and reasonable to offer for its contractor to contact the resident in the most suitable timeframe for her.
110.      While the information shows that the resident was contacted in the morning on some occasions, the landlord took steps for her preference to be given regard to, and took reasonable steps when the resident reported concerns about staff and contractor actions. This investigation understands that occasions contact from staff or contractors went against the resident’s preference was distressing, however there is no evidence that the preference was intentionally ignored or that contact in the morning inappropriately continued to a level to lead this Service to find a service failure.

The offer to transfer to another property and the related void works

111.      It is not in this Service’s authority or role to decide whether a tenant should be rehoused. The landlord’s housing allocations policy advises that applicants are added to a waiting list and may be invited to viewings when decorating and maintenance works are incomplete, but flats will be let in a newly decorated condition. Following a viewing and an offer being made, applicants are required to confirm their acceptance or refusal within 24 hours. In regards to transfers, where possible the landlord will consider a tenant’s wish to move from one property to another, and where an offer is made on discretionary grounds, only one offer will be made.
112.      The landlord’s actions in respect to the transfer were in line with the above and seem reasonable. It informed the resident that the property would be ready for letting when she viewed it, but went on to carry out further cleaning and works, however this was within scope of the allocations policy that a viewing may take place when works are incomplete. The landlord provided opportunity for the resident to view the property after works, as when she requested for her and another party to view the flat after works and before signing the tenancy agreement, it agreed to this. As the resident decided to formally reject the flat rather than view it again after works were completed, the landlord’s allocation to the next waiting list applicant appears reasonable and is in line with its policy.
113.      This investigation understands that when the resident viewed the property, after she had rejected it, she felt the landlord had carried out more works for the incoming tenant than indicated to her and had been silent on some aspects. The landlord’s handling of this aspect seems reasonable as the works the resident observed match the description of what the landlord said it would do.
114.      This investigation notes that the resident requested for the landlord to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen, in line with its major works programme, and carry out a number of other works. While the resident raises a number of points in respect to these matters, there is no evidence that the landlord was obligated to address all of the issues she identified.
115.      The landlord does not provide a voids policy, however its approach to the works is in line with its repairs obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the general obligations it has to let its properties in good repair. The landlord is generally obligated to upgrade bathrooms and kitchens around every 20 to 30 years dependent on the condition. In respect to this, it is not in this Service’s authority or expertise to decide when a landlord should upgrade its housing stock, and a landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff. The landlord considered the resident’s request; did not consider the bathroom and kitchen to be sufficiently near the end of their natural life; and so did not feel upgrades were necessary. This shows that the landlord responded in a reasonable way that this Service would expect to see, as it considered the matter and reached conclusions based on assessments by staff.

The behaviour of staff and a tenant and the emergency contact arrangements

116.      It is not in the Ombudsman’s authority to make definitive decisions about HR matters, tenancy breach or ASB, however this Service can take a view on matters. The landlord is reasonably obliged to consider claims of inappropriate behaviour by staff, while its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy confirms it is committed to addressing ASB in an appropriate and proportionate way considering all the circumstances, such as the severity of a problem; the frequency; and the risks posed.
117.      The information shows that the landlord considered the resident’s reports about staff and tenant behaviour, and set out its position that there was no evidence for staff misconduct or action against the tenant’s tenancy. It also offered mediation between the resident and staff she complained about. The landlord responded to the matters in ways this Service would expect to see, and appears to have reached reasonable conclusions and taken a proportionate and reasonable approach based on the evidence available. The resident has stated the tenant was given a criminal record and a different approach from the landlord may have been expected if this was the case; however, while they made an informal agreement with the police, there is no evidence they were given a criminal conviction.
118.      It is understandable that a ‘responsible tenant’ opening the resident’s parcel will have distressed the resident, and it is understandable she may have felt unhappy at their continuing in the role. The evidence shows the landlord reviewed its position and changed this on consideration of the information the resident supplied and her complaint. This was reasonable and in line with what this Service would expect to see.

The reports about noise from a flat

119.      The information shows that the landlord considered the resident’s reports and confirmed it could not evidence them after checking CCTV. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about a door slamming at the flat in the morning in ways this Service would expect to see, as it investigated the reports and set out its position.
120.      The landlord’s referral to noise coming from a laundry room appears to misconstrue a report from the resident that, while in the laundry room, fellow tenants had heard noise from the flat in question. The landlord could have followed this up by asking the resident for the tenants’ details to discuss this incident with them. However, there is an expectancy for tenants to make their own reports to the landlord, and its response seems reasonable and proportionate given from available evidence that the reports were limited.

The disrepair to a boundary wall

121.      The landlord’s repairs policy advises that issues that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance, such as non-hazardous communal repairs, are treated as non-urgent repairs with a completion timescale of 28 days.
122.      Following the disrepair to the wall in January 2021, the landlord did not meet the 28 day completion timescale. However, before the March 2021 response that said the repair would be completed in 28 days, the evidence shows the landlord was taking steps to progress the repair in January and February 2021. The landlord’s response to the repair appears overall reasonable, considering all the circumstances of the issue. The issue occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic; involved insurance matters; and there is no evidence that the delay caused significant detriment.

The sounding of a smoke alarm.

123.      The landlord’s repairs policy advises that it responds to emergencies and most urgent repairs within 24 hours, and the landlord met its stated service timescales for the issue, investigated the reports and set out its position. The landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident, and provided reasonable explanation about the effect of the bank holiday and its contractor’s prioritisation of repairs on the time it took and ability to provide ETAs. This investigation recognises the issue will have caused distress and inconvenience, and it is understandable that the resident will have wanted the issue to be swiftly resolved. However, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded in an appropriate way, in line with its obligations and relatively sooner than the overall 24 hour timescale.

The electric cupboard doors being left open.

124.      The evidence shows that the landlord considered reports the resident made about electric cupboard doors were left open, such as in January 2019, and it took action in relation to them. However, this investigation understands the resident’s concerns about health and safety and desire for the landlord to be more proactive about the issue, and its July 2021 response confirmed more proactive action for the issue was being taken. Overall, the landlord’s response seems reasonable and proportionate from the evidence about the issue. The landlord reviewed the matter; identified reasonable process changes it could make; and there is no evidence the issue resulted in any significant detriment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

125.      This investigation notes that the landlord responded in reasonably timely ways to initial complaints and concerns, including more recent ones, but ultimately took a year to provide a final response to a complaint it said it would escalate in March 2020. The Ombudsman’s July 2020 Covid-19 guidance encouraged landlords to deal with complaints in a usual manner as best they could, and to exercise discretion dealing with complaints through their procedure. The guidance suggested, as a good practise example, holding a review meeting virtually with an option for a resident to join. While the landlord clearly sought to accommodate the resident’s desire to take the complaint to the panel and acknowledged this was pending at points, as time went on it should have been more proactive and considered earlier closure of the complaint as it stood at the time; considered alternative ways a panel could be held; or considered alternative means of providing a final response.
126.      This investigation understands that the resident will have been disappointed the complaint was not reviewed by a board panel, and that this may have led the resident to feel she was not being treated fairly. The landlord could have managed the resident’s expectations better, as from March 2020 it said the complaint would progress to a panel and in December 2020 said it would hold a remote panel, which it later departed from. The landlord’s complaints procedure changed in December 2020 to a two stage procedure which removed the panel stage, but as the resident originally complained under the previous procedure this could have reasonably still applied. However, the complaint later clearly broadened beyond the original complaint, which the 400 page complaint made in December 2020 shows. The information provided demonstrates that the landlord provided a comprehensive response to this and considered a panel referral, and based on the evidence available the decision itself not to hold the panel in March 2021 seems reasonable.
127.      The ongoing postponement did not cause significant detriment in respect to the substantive issues; and this Service recognises the impact of Covid-1; the challenge coordinating a complaint panel; and the complex and challenging nature of the complaints. However, the length of time it took for the landlord to provide a final response to a complaint it said it would escalate in March 2020 was an inappropriate length of time. This unnecessarily protracted matters, when the resident may have benefited from provision of a final response earlier, to draw a line under some issues and to enable her to bring them to this Service.
128.      Overall, while the landlord provided a comprehensive final response, it was inappropriate that this was a year after the previous response, and this leads this Service to make a finding of service failure in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. This investigation notes that the landlord has since taken appropriate action to amend its complaints policy to reflect the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and so a recommendation is simply made for it to review its complaint handling, to ensure it continues to progress complaints within its formal complaints procedure in accordance with its revised policy and in a timely manner.

Determination (decision)

129.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about fire safety and the removal of fire extinguishers.
130.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the completion of a person-centred fire risk assessment.
131.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the request for a copy of a fire risk assessment.
132.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the deep cleans and the provision of hand sanitiser units at the block after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
133.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the guestroom cleanliness.
134.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the breakdown of lifts.
135.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the flooding into a communal area, the condition of a communal ceiling and a communal dial.
136.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the welfare checks and repairs contacts.
137.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the offer to transfer to another property and the related void works.
138.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the behaviour of staff and a tenant and the emergency contact arrangements.
139.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports about noise from a flat.
140.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the disrepair to a boundary wall.
141.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the sounding of a smoke alarm.
142.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the electric cupboard doors being left open.
143.      In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

144.      The evidence gives no reason to doubt that the landlord’s approach and decision-making in respect to fire safety at the block is not appropriate. The removal of communal fire extinguishers was in line with sector guidance, and an independent fire risk assessment of the block supports this and the block fire safety.
145.      While the landlord’s initial completion of the assessment does not seem out of line with appropriate guidance, it offered a reasonable resolution to the initial dissatisfaction with the assessment, and offered a further reasonable resolution in the final response.
146.      While it is good practise and encouraged for the landlord to provide fire risk assessments to residents, there is no specific legal obligation, and its explanation that it aims to do so once it is in a user friendly format seems reasonable.
147.      It is unclear if the landlord informed residents when deep cleans would commence as a communication said it would, and unclear if the resident received response to an enquiry before she contacted an MP, however it overall responded reasonably. It took contemporaneous steps to investigate and confirm deep cleans had started and their nature; and provided reasonable explanation for delays in provision of hand sanitiser units.
148.      The landlord responded reasonably about the guestroom cleanliness, as it took steps to investigate the reports and set out a position on each issue raised, and there is no evidence any detriment was caused.
149.      The landlord reasonably met its repairs obligations, and it decided that the lifts would not be replaced in a reasonable way by considering the frequency of lift breakdowns, which do not seem excessive.
150.      There is no evidence that the landlord caused the floods; it met its repairs obligations through timely attendance of electricians and plumbers; and the action taken for the ceiling and dial seems reasonable considering all the circumstances.
151.      While the resident was contacted in the morning on some occasions against her wishes, the landlord took appropriate steps for her preferences to be given regard to, and overall it provided reasonable resolutions in respect to welfare checks and repairs contacts.
152.      The landlord exercised discretion to make a transfer offer; agreed for the resident to view the property again after works were completed; allocated the property to a new tenant after the resident rejected the property and the opportunity to view it again; and carried out void works in line with what it said it would. There is no evidence the landlord was obligated to address all of the issues the resident identified, and it decided that the bathroom and kitchen would not be upgraded in a reasonable way.
153.      It is not in the Ombudsman’s authority to make definitive decisions about HR matters or tenancy breach. The landlord considered the resident’s reports about staff and tenant behaviour and set out its position on these. The landlord reviewed its position on a ‘responsible tenant’ opening the resident’s parcel, and changed this on consideration of the information the resident supplied and her complaint. The landlord demonstrates it responded in ways this Service would expect to see, and its conclusions seem reasonable based on the evidence available.
154.      While the landlord appeared to misconstrue the resident’s report that tenants in a laundry room had heard noise from the flat, it investigated and responded reasonably and proportionately given the limited nature of the reports.
155.      While landlord did not meet the 28 day completion timescale to repair the wall, it was taking steps to progress the repair, and its response appears reasonable considering all the circumstances. There is no evidence any significant detriment was caused by the length of time the repair took.
156.      While this investigation recognises the smoke alarm will have caused distress and inconvenience, and it is understandable that the resident will have wanted the issue to be swiftly resolved, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord responded in an appropriate way, in line with its obligations and relatively sooner than the 24 hour timescale.
157.      The landlord’s response about the electric cupboard doors seems reasonable and proportionate from the evidence about the issue. The landlord reviewed the matter, identified reasonable process changes it could make, and there is no evidence that the issue has resulted in any significant detriment.
158.      While the landlord provided a comprehensive final response, it was inappropriate this was a year after a previous complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

159.      The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the issues identified with the its complaint handling. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service within four weeks of this decision that it has taken steps to comply with this.

Recommendations

160.      The landlord to review its complaint handling, to ensure it continues to progress complaints within its formal complaints procedure in accordance with its revised policy and in a timely manner.
161.      The landlord to continue to review the person-centred fire risk assessments on an ongoing basis to ensure these reflect individual tenants’ vulnerabilities and include appropriate action plans.
162.      The landlord to provide the resident with the fire risk assessment, and to review the practises of other landlords and how it can provide FRAs to its residents in a more timely way. As part of its review, it could consider if FRAs can be completed from the start in a user friendly way; or can be completed in a similar format to that of other social landlords that publish their FRAs, to avoid excessive delay in creating user friendly FRAs.
163.      The landlord to ensure it effectively manages resident expectations and communication, in light of issues noted at paragraph 97 of this report.