London Borough of Hounslow (202513407)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat on the 13th floor of a block of flats that is over 18 metres high. He told the landlord his front door was not secure and he was concerned about his security and the risk of fire.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new front door.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to replace the resident’s front door in a timely manner, despite noting it was unrepairable.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. This Service does not have the expertise to assess whether the resident’s front door is fit for purpose. We have, however, assessed whether the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation into the complaint raised by the resident and whether its actions were in accordance with its policies, procedures and good practice.
8. The landlord is required by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to ensure that a fire risk assessment is carried out to identify and remove any fire risks and hazards or to reduce these as far as possible. It is also required to maintain facilities and equipment that impact on fire risks in good repair. This includes fire doors.
9. It is not disputed that the resident’s front door is a fire door. He told the landlord on 31 May 2023 that the door was replaced during the previous year and was not secure. He said he wanted a UPVC door. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building and fire safety precautions in shared areas.
10. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was not consistent with its repairs policy. This says it will seek to repair insecure external doors within 24 hours. The landlord’s lack of prompt engagement with a potential serious fire safety concern demonstrated a lack of concern for the resident’s safety
11. The resident chased up the landlord on 3 January 2024. The landlord told the resident that he could submit a complaint if he was unhappy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the door to be inspected given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
12. The landlord did not inspect the door until 20 May 2024 and only did so after the resident reported the lock was faulty. This was some 12 months after the resident raised concerns that the door was insecure. This was a failure.
13. It is unclear from the housing records if the door was inspected by a competent person as required under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The landlord noted the front door was loose around the frame and that a new door was required. No repairs were ordered following the inspection and there is no evidence it carried out an assessment to determine whether the door was adequate to resist the spread of fire or smoke from the common parts of the building. This was a further failure.
14. The landlord arranged for the door to be added to its door replacement programme. This was consistent with its repairs policy. This says the landlord will include repairs that are extensive, such as replacing doors on its planned maintenance programme. Such work is carried out within 40 working days.
15. There is no evidence the resident was provided with an update following the inspection. This was not consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy. It also failed to replace the door in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This led to the resident chasing up the landlord on the number of occasions between June 2024 and February 2025. This included noting he was concerned about fire safety.
16. The landlord failed to respond to the majority of the resident’s requests for updates. This demonstrated poor communication and meant the resident was not clear on what action was being taken by the landlord. The situation was likely to have caused him distress, particularly given he had been raising concerns about safety for a significant period of time. This Service’s spotlight report on cladding and fire safety says landlord should be proactive and update residents regularly, even where there is little or no change.
17. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2025.
18. When considering how a landlord responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
19. In this case, the landlord confirmed the door was unrepairable and needed to be replaced. This provided clarity. It said the delay was due to it having to appoint a new specialist contractor to carry out its door replacement programme. Whilst this Service acknowledges the landlord may have had to take account of contractual and financial considerations, it should have ensured potential health and safety issues regarding the door were progressed. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident frustration and concern. Whilst the landlord said it would assess whether any temporary safety measures could be put in place, there is no evidence it did this. This was a further failure.
20. The landlord offered the resident £85 compensation for the inconvenience that was caused due to the lack of communication. The offer was not reasonable in the circumstances given the length of time that had passed since the resident first raised concerns and the number of times he had to chase up the matter, which the landlord did not address in a reassuring way. The landlord did not offer an apology or any compensation for the delay in replacing the door.
21. The resident told the landlord on 3 June 2025 that his property was not safe and there was a risk of fire spreading given the door was not sealed. The landlord responded on the same day and noted that a new contractor would be appointed by the end of the year. The landlord’s response was not reasonable in the circumstances given the potential health and safety risk. Whilst it said it continued to carry out regular fire risk assessments in the building to ensure the safety of residents, no further details were provided.
22. The landlord told the resident on 5 June 2025 that his safety was not compromised, although it is unclear on what basis this conclusion was reached given no inspection had been completed to confirm if the door was fire and smoke resistant. It also said it had to follow fire safety regulations and procurement processes before work could begin. This was further evidence of the landlord failing to prioritise a potential health and safety concern.
23. The landlord noted on 3 July 2025 in its final complaint response that the resident’s door would be replaced as part of a wider door replacement programme for the block. It said it was in the process of procuring a specialist door contractor and the resident’s property would be prioritised once a contractor had been appointed. It noted the work was likely to start in January 2026.
24. Whilst the landlord acknowledged there were avoidable delays in its communication and there was a delay in replacing the door, the resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said this was because it was satisfied the original investigation was carried out appropriately. The response demonstrated a lack of insight on the part of the landlord. It failed to take adequate steps to put things right for the resident and did not offer any redress for the detriment he experienced.
25. In summary, the landlord failed to prioritise the replacement of the resident’s front door and it did not consider if there were potential fire safety risks. The landlord’s communication with the resident was also poor and it failed to address his concerns in a reassuring way. In addition, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to demonstrate insight and its offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances.

26. The resident made a complaint on 13 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 May 2025 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 2 June 2025.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 June 2025 in accordance with the 10 working day timescales set out in its complaints policy. This was appropriate.
28. The resident escalated his complaint on 11 June 2025. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord on 17 June 2025. It said it would provide a response by 15 July 2025.
29. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 July 2025 in accordance with the 20-working day target set out in its complaints policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication.

31. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of his request for updates.