London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202017370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017370

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

22 July 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the requirement to carry out fire safety remedial works in the building which he owns a property in.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns that it was not responsible for works to upgrade or renew the front entrance door to the property which he owned.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors were not adhering to health and safety procedures.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the shared-owner of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder.
The property is a flat, situated in a purpose-built building (the building).
The landlord “assumed legal ownership” of the building in April 2018 following a merger with landlord A in 2016.
The building was built in 2012/2013.

Summary of events

On 18 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that its contractor (the contractor) would be completing remedial works (the works) identified following the recent Fire Risk Assessment (FRA). The landlord confirmed that the works included:
1. Either an “upgrade or replacement” of the property’s front entrance door with a survey taking place on 8 June 2020 to determine which was necessary.
2. “Various works” in the communal areas, commencing from 21 May 2020.
On 26 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise several queries regarding the works. The resident requested the following information:
1. Specification and construction details for the new front door.
2. Regulatory information including building regulations, codes of best practice and fire legislation.
3. The contractor’s risk assessment and method statement. The resident noted that on 24 May 2020 he had witnessed the contractor in the building however the operatives in attendance were not wearing face masks or Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The resident stated that this was concerning in light of the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 30 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord, copying in the contractor, to raise “additional concerns about [the contractor’s] operating practices” when carrying out the works. The resident explained that earlier that day the contractor’s operatives were not wearing face masks or PPE and failed to provide a two-metre social distancing space in order for him to safely move along the communal corridor. The resident also noted that the operatives had wedged a fire door open.
On 2 June 2020 the contractor responded to the resident. In summary the contractor said:
1. As the resident was a shared owner he was responsible for his own front door; therefore it would not be upgraded or replaced.
2. The operatives completing the works were not required to socially distance from each other as they were from the same household.
3. The landlord did not require its operatives to wear face masks, however they would respect any requests to do so by residents.
4. Its “works procedure checklist” was being adhered to by its operatives, which included disinfecting surfaces and providing hand sanitiser.
5. The resident could politely have requested for the operatives to move in order to provide adequate space to pass along the corridor.
6. The door was wedged open for “air flow” when the operatives were present.
On 5 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that he was not satisfied with the contractor’s response, as it was “incomplete” and failed to address “the majority” of his concerns. The resident noted that he did not feel safe around the contractor’s operatives.
On the same day the landlord responded. The landlord apologised for the contractor’s response, confirming that it would provide a full response in due course.
On 8 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to provide an “update” on further “health and safety” concerns relating to the contractor. In summary the resident said:
1. On 4 June 2020 the operatives had wedged open the entrance doors to the building with a tube of sealant however they were not working in the area. The resident suggested that this was “bad working practice” and a “security risk”.
2. On 6 June 2020 the operatives had left the fourth-floor electrical meter riser cupboard unlocked. The resident noted that it should be locked as it was a fire door. The resident also reported that the operatives had stored items in the cupboard which was inappropriate and “unsafe”.
3. Operatives had again failed to provide a two-metre social distancing space in order for him to safely move along the communal corridor.
4. He disagreed that the operatives did not need to socially distance despite living within the same household.
5. He did not think that it was an appropriate policy that the landlord did not require its contractors to wear face masks.
6. If the property’s front door was not to be upgraded or renewed, the landlord’s correspondence dated 18 May 2020 was inappropriate and misleading.
On 28 June 2020 the resident wrote to his councillor to raise concerns regarding the works. In summary the resident said:
1. He was concerned about the scope of the works and the rationale behind them. The resident noted that it was not clear why remedial works were required as the building was recently completed; in 2013.
2. He was not aware of any changes in building regulations which deemed the works necessary. The resident noted that the building had sign-off from the local authority on completion.
3. The works suggested that the building had not been completed in accordance with building regulations in place at the time it was constructed. The resident suggested that, if this was the case, the property had been miss-sold.
4. He was aware that landlord A had completed several Type 1 FRAs between 2015 and 2018 which had not identified that remedial works were necessary. The resident questioned why the landlord had undertaken a Type 4 FRA in February 2019.
5. In December 2018 the fire brigade completed a visual inspection of the block, on his request, and no breach of fire safety compliance was identified.
6. The landlord had discriminated against leaseholders and shared owners in not surveying the front doors to the properties which they owned. The resident noted that all doors within the building were the same and therefore posed the same risk.
7. It was not clear how the landlord was funding the works.
Following receipt of the resident’s correspondence the Councillor contacted the landlord for a response.
On 29 June 2020 the resident asked the landlord to confirm when it would provide its response to his concerns regarding the works, as it promised on 5 June 2020.
On 8 July 2020 the resident registered a complaint about “fire risk assessment remedial works [and] contractor health and safety performance”. The resident noted that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord had failed to respond to his concerns, which he had raised between May and June 2020, relating to the works despite committing to do so. Within his complaint the resident requested that the contractor return to clean “residue” on his front door which had occurred during the works.
On 22 July 2020 the landlord responded to the Councillor. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was committed to ensuring its buildings were compliant with the latest building safety regulations and it therefore undertook regular FRAs.
2. Landlord A commissioned Type 1 FRAs in 2016 and 2017 which did not identify any concerns. The landlord confirmed that it did not have details setting out the scope of the FRAs commissioned by landlord A.
3. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, FRA had become “much more stringent” covering “areas of a building not previously investigated to ensure the fire safety compliance of a block”.
4. In April 2018 it carried out a Type 1 FRA which identified “concerns with the integrity of fire stopping in most of the electrical riser cupboards”. The landlord confirmed that the report also identified that some communal doors were found to have missing smoke seals.
5. In February 2019 it commissioned a Type 4 FRA in response to the findings of the Type 1 FRA. The landlord explained that a Type 4 FRA was the most comprehensive assessment available. The landlord confirmed that a Type 4 FRA was only required where it had recently taken over the management of a building or where it felt that further investigation was required to verify the integrity of fire stopping and compartmentation.
6. The Type 4 FRA made several recommendations to improve fire stopping and compartmentation with the building. The landlord confirmed that the recommendations were currently being carried out by the contractor.
7. FRAs did not have to be shared however it would provide redacted versions on request. The landlord advised that it could not comment on landlord A’s policy on sharing FRAs.
8. All purpose-built buildings which it owned received building control sign off and received approval from a licensed warranty provided after the completion of the build. The landlord confirmed that once a building was occupied it would carry out periodic FRAs.
9. In response to reactive repairs and improvements, such as replacement of parts or new installations, building compliance with safety standards would need to be reviewed.
10. The cost of upgrading individual front entrance doors which were considered non-compliant with current fire safety standards would be covered by it with the exception of shared ownership and leasehold properties. The landlord confirmed that residents who were shared owners or leaseholders were responsible for their own front door in accordance with the terms of the lease.
11. It had decided not to charge residents, including shared owners or leaseholders, any of the costs for the works.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in its response.
2. It had enclosed an appendix to its response, responding to the resident’s concerns in relation to the property. [A summary of the appendix will be provided below].
3. While it had not acknowledged the resident’s complaint, as the receiving officer was on annual leave, it had communicated with the resident regarding his concerns.
4. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic both itself and the contractor had completed a “dynamic risk assessment (DRA)” prior to the commencement of any works which was monitored “daily” throughout the works.
5. Many of the contractor’s operatives were related and therefore did not have to socially distance with each other.
6. The wearing of face masks was not compulsory at the time the works were being undertaken. The landlord noted that operatives were now required to wear masks within its buildings.
7. Operatives had been permitted to use the riser cupboards for daily storage during the works and this decision had been risk assessed. The landlord noted that the materials were non-flammable as they were being used for fire stopping works. The landlord confirmed that “materials [were] also removed at the end of each working day and stored off site”.
8. Operatives were aware of social distancing rules with residents. The landlord noted that the resident had felt uncomfortable when he had been in close proximity to operatives. The landlord also noted that the operatives had moved at his request. The landlord confirmed that it was “not always possible to adhere to the 2 metre rule due to the size and areas of [its] building” and this would have been addressed with the DRA.
Summary of the appendix:
1. The landlord confirmed that it was not replacing the resident’s front entrance door.
2. Information on the property’s front entrance door should have been provided during the purchase of the property via the homeownership team and his solicitor.
3. Regulatory information was available on the Government website. The landlord confirmed that it would not provide this information directly and it would be for the resident to research the details and information he required.
On 29 September 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord’s response was “perfunctory and unsatisfactory”. The resident suggested that the landlord had been disadvantaged as it was not present during the works and the information it had reviewed was “second or third hand from colleagues who may have [had] a vested interest in presenting the situation in a more positive light”.
2. He did not accept the landlord’s apology for its late response to his complaint. The resident stated that the landlord had “failed to comply with [its] own complaint policy by an unacceptable margin”.
3. The landlord’s response did not provide a comprehensive response to the enquiries which he raised on 26 May 2020 in respect of the works.
4. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord provided incorrect information in relation to the scope of works in respect of the property’s front entrance door on 18 May 2020. The resident suggested that the landlord should have provided a follow up letter with “correct information”.
5. The landlord committed to addressing his concerns on 5 June 2020 however did not do so. The resident stated that this was unsatisfactory.
6. While the landlord and contractor may have completed a DRA in respect of the works, it did not appear that the operatives had complied with it.
7. By May 2020 Public Health England were promoting the use of PPE when undertaking maintenance or installation works. The resident stated that it was therefore “remiss” of the landlord not to require operatives to use PPE, especially when working in close proximity to residents.
8. The contractor’s operatives had use of an external storage facility and therefore it was not necessary to store their materials within the riser cupboard during the works. The resident stated that some of the materials contained “hazard labelling” and therefore should not have been stored in the riser cupboard which was accessible to all residents, including as it may cause an allergic reaction. The resident noted that all residents had a key to the riser cupboard in order to read their electricity meter.
9. He believed it “rather presumptuous” of the landlord to state that the contractor’s operatives did adhere to social distancing as it was not present during the works. The resident stated that operatives could easily have created compliance with the 2 metre rule, however failed to do so.
10. Wedging fire doors open was “a non-compliant action” unless it was for a short duration and only to move materials through. The resident stated that he observed that doors were wedged opened for long periods of time.
11. In relation to the landlord’s appendix:
  1. Technical details on the property’s front entrance were not provided as part of the sale of the property. The resident stated that he would not expect a new front door to require upgrading or replacing within six years.
  2. The landlord’s response to his request for regulatory information was “unhelpful”. The resident confirmed that he had specifically requested the information in relation to the building following the Type 4 FRA. The resident stated that he was “deeply concerned that [he] possibly purchased and [was] living in a home for six and half years that was not fully fire safety complaint with the building regulations”.
On 28 September 2020 the Councillor contacted the landlord providing the resident’s comments on its response dated 22 July 2020. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not hold full details regarding the FRAs completed by landlord A.
2. The landlord had not made clear whether the original fire stopping and compartmentation within the building complied with regulations at the time it was constructed.
3. The landlord had not made clear whether the properties’ entrance doors were fitted without cold smoke seals as required by building regulations or whether they had deteriorated since installation.
4. The landlord was putting the building at risk by not addressing front entrance doors for leasehold and shared-ownership properties. The resident stated that he was informed by the landlord in its letter dated 18 May 2020 that the property’s front door would be upgraded or renewed.
5. He remained concerned that no evidence or reassurance had been provided that the building was constructed complying with “statutory building and fire safety regulations”.
On 1 November 2020 the resident asked the landlord for an update on its response to his correspondence dated 29 September 2020.
On 2 November 2020 the landlord confirmed that it was in the process of drafting its final response to his complaint and it would be provided “by the end of the week”.
On 5 November 200 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing its response. The landlord explained that the delay was due to needing to liaise with different teams “which took a little time”.
2. It was sorry that the resident had not received timely responses from it previously in respect of his initial concerns and enquiries related to the works.
3. Its letter dated May 2020 was issued in error, by its contractor. The landlord confirmed that it did not carry our work to either shared ownership or leasehold properties. The landlord apologised for the mistake, confirming that it had raised the matter with the contractor and “implemented an improved system to ensure the right information [was] being given on the correspondence being sent to [its] residents”.
4. Both leaseholders and shared owners’ front entrance doors were “just as important” as other properties but, as it did not own the doors, it did not arrange to either upgrade or change them itself. The landlord noted that it would however be in touch with the resident to advise “how this [would] be implemented and [would] work with [its] shared owners and leaseholders to ensure all doors were fully compliant”.
5. The contractor’s operatives were permitted to store materials in the riser cupboard while they were working so that materials were not left within the communal hallways. The landlord confirmed that it deemed this to be the safest option. The landlord advised that in response to the resident’s concerns regarding access to hazardous materials, it did not expect any residents to access the cupboard or touch its materials. The landlord reiterated that no materials were left on site overnight so would they not be accessible to residents once the operatives had left the building.
6. It had discussed social distancing with the contractor who confirmed that it had regular talks with operatives regarding Government guidelines in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.
7. Operatives may not have immediately observed the resident when he entered the corridor. The landlord noted that it was “deemed reasonable for a resident to speak with operatives and request them to provide a safe distance to pass, if they had not already done so”.
8. It agreed that it was unacceptable that the door was wedged open on 30 May 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken to the contractor about wedging doors open while undertaking work in the building, making “it quite clear” that it was “not [deemed] an acceptable working practice”. The landlord noted however that no evidence was available to prove that the contractor’s operatives had been the ones to wedge the door open on that day.
9. In respect of the appendix:
  1. The building was built by landlord A.
  2. Due to the length of time which had elapsed since the resident purchased the property the team which dealt with the sale no longer existed so it could not approach it for further information.
  3. The building would have been compliant with building regulations and singed off by building control.
  4. Building regulations did change over the course of time and as a responsible landlord it wanted to ensure that its properties were safe and therefore it had completed fire safety works at the building.
  5. All actions following the Type 1 FRA undertaken in May 2018 had been completed.
  6. The findings from the Type 4 FRA were “used as the basis of the subsequent fire safety works”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.
On 17 November 2020 the landlord responded to the Councillor. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was unable to comment on whether the FRAs completed by landlord A should have identified deficiencies in the building’s fire stopping and compartmentation as the specification for the FRA were not available to it.
2. The scope of FRA on all resident buildings had broadened and continued to do so following the Grenfell Tower fire.
3. The Type 4 FRA completed in February 2019 did “not identify that the seals [on the front entrance doors] were either non-compliant or not installed when the building was first constructed”. The landlord confirmed the FRA identified “these items as in need of replacing/ installation”.
4. The cost of the works was a cost which it had agreed to absorb in line with its commitment to “ensuring the safety of [its] residents within their homes”.
5. Under the terms of the property’s lease the resident was responsible for ensuring that the front door was compliant with the latest standards.
6. Its letter dated 18 May 2020 was a generic letter which was incorrectly delivered to all residents within the building. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience this caused.
7. It would be in touch with all leaseholders and shared owners about their individual front entrance doors in due course.
8. It was unable to answers any queries in relation to building control in relation to the property.
On 29 March 2021 the resident referred his complaint to this Service for consideration as he was not happy with the landlord’s response. The resident confirmed that his complaint concerned:
1. The need for fire safety remedial works.
2. The quality and accuracy of the landlord’s communication in advance of the works in 2020.
3. Issues with the contractors’ health and safety management procedures during the works.
4. The landlord’s response to his concerns regarding the contractor’s implementation of its health and safety management procedures.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the requirement to carry out fire safety remedial works in the building which he owns a property in

The Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (the Order) sets out that the responsible person for multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment in communal areas, making sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire. The Ombudsman notes that there are no specific time periods in law for how often fire risk assessments must be carried out or reviewed, the requirement is for the assessment to be reviewed “regularly” to make sure it is up to date.
The evidence shows that since the landlord became the freeholder of the building it is complying with the Order as it is undertaking regular FRAs of the building to identity and mitigate risks. This is appropriate. The most recent inspection undertaken during the period under investigation was in February 2019.
The FRA completed in February 2019 was a Type 4 risk assessment. The Ombudsman notes that a Type 4 FRA is the most comprehensive risk assessment possible, as the survey involves a degree of destructive exposure in order to consider viability of the compartmentation within the building. The report following the FRA concluded that the “hazard from fire” was medium, meaning “normal fire hazards, with fire hazards generally subject to appropriate controls – other than minor shortcomings”. The report made 19 recommendations to address issues “requiring attention” which included fire doors and fire stopping. In response to this FRA assessment the landlord instructed the contractor to undertake a programme of works to address the recommendations, commencing in May 2020. This was appropriate as the works had been highlighted as necessary to improve the safety of the building.
As part of his complaint the resident put forward that the need for remedial works – the works – suggested that the building was not constructed complying with statutory building and fire safety regulations in place at that time, which was unsatisfactory. The Ombudsman does not have the knowledge or expertise to make an assessment on whether the building was compliant with building and fire regulations at the time it was constructed, as this would require the judgement of an expert who has expertise within the field. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm to the resident that the building received building control sign off following its construction, which indicated that it was built in accordance with the required regulations which were in place at that time. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was not involved in the build process.
In responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the need for the works the landlord provided a comprehensive explanation detailing the rationale for undertaking a Type 4 FRA. This included that it had recently taken over ownership of the building, in light of the changing approach to fire safety following the Grenfell Tower fire, and because the Type 1 FRA in 2018 had highlighted areas of concerns. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s explanation was appropriate as it provided reason and explanation to support its decision, and therefore to justify that the works were needed despite the building being less than 10 years old.
Within the complaint, the resident suggested that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not hold full details on the FRAs completed by landlord A. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unhelpful that the landlord did not have full details of the FRAs completed by landlord A. While the landlord was not responsible for landlord A’s recording keeping, and therefore the information that it could provide as part of the merger, it should have ensured that adequate records relating to landlord A’s stock were transferred as part of the overall merger process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord mitigated any risk in this regard however by undertaking a FRA in May 2018 on becoming the building’s responsible person.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it was not responsible for works to upgrade or renew the front entrance door to the property which he owned

The Type 4 FRA identified that “flat entrance doors were not provided with cold smoke seals… it is recommended that cold smoke seals are fitted to all flat entrance doors”.
The evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2020 confirming that the property’s front entrance door would either be upgraded or replaced “if required” following a “door survey” on 8 June 2020. The Ombudsman notes that the letter did not refer to any costs or recharges in relation to the work. In the Ombudsman’s opinion as the letter was addressed to the resident it was reasonable for him to believe that the property’s door would be surveyed, and upgraded or renewed if needed, as part of the works at no cost to him.
Following receipt of the landlord’s letter the resident made enquiries regarding the door upgrade or renewal and on 2 June 2020 the contractor confirmed that the property was not included in the programme of works as it was shared ownership. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided any further information or details regarding the property’s front door at that time. As the landlord’s letter had indicated that door may require work to make it safe, it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not clarify the situation. This would have resulted in uncertainty and distress to the resident.
The evidence shows that it was not until November 2020 that the landlord confirmed that it would be in touch with shared owners and leaseholders regarding their front doors to advise how it would work with them to ensure their doors were “fully compliant”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a significantly protracted period of time, approximately five months, for this information to be forthcoming. While it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed that the issue was going to be taken forward, as it recognised that it was an outstanding issue for all parties and did impact on the safety of the building, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unsatisfactory that no timeframe was provided by the landlord indicating when the discussion would begin. The landlord’s omission would have caused further uncertainty and distress to the resident as to when a resolution would be achieved.
Section 3.4 of the property’s lease sets out that the leaseholder shall “repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition”. Schedule 1, point 2(b) of the lease sets out that the “the doors” form part of the premises. Under the terms of the property’s lease it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that he was responsible for the property’s front entrance door and any work required to it. If the resident believes that he is not responsible for any costs for works needed to upgrade or renew the front door under the terms of the property’s lease he may wish to refer his complaint to the First Tier Tribunal Property Tribunal (FTT). The FFT deals with residential leasehold disputes between leaseholders and their landlords. The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of liability to pay a service charge and/ or administration charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability the FTT also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.
As part of its final response the landlord apologised that its letter dated 18 May 2020 contained incorrect information. While the apology was appropriate to demonstrate that the landlord acknowledged its error, in the Ombudsman’s opinion alone it does not amount to an offer of reasonable redress. This is because it does not take into account that the landlord’s apology was provided approximately five months after the error was first identified in June 2020, or that on identification of the error no information was given to the resident detailing next steps for ensuring that the door was fire safety compliant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors were not adhering to health and safety procedures

As part of his complaint the resident raised concerns that the contractor’s operatives were not adhering to health and safety procedures including in relation to Covid-19 and fire safety.
The landlord has provided a copy of the contractor’s DRA for the “FRA remedial works, including door upgrades and fire stopping” dated 22 May 2020. In relation to Covid-19 the document noted:
1. “Control measure to be used – maintain 2m distance from others, sanitise surfaces before and after works commence/ complete”.
2. “PPE required – face mask, gloves, hand sanitiser”.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion as the contractor’s DRA noted that the wearing of PPE was “required” in completing the works, it was unsatisfactory the operatives did not follow this instruction when undertaking the works. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord or contractor did not dispute that the operatives in attendance were not wearing face masks or other PPE. The Ombudsman understands that the DRA risk rating of “moderate”, meaning acceptable control measures in place, was awarded on the undertaking that the control measures were abided by.
The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident felt uncomfortable during encounters with the contractor’s operatives due to social distancing requirements. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to social distancing, namely that the operatives were aware of the 2 metre rule, it was not always possible to adhere to the 2 meter rule and the resident may have asked the operatives to provide a 2 metre space to allow him to pass, was reasonable in the circumstances. This is because the 2 metre rule was documented within the contractor’s DRA and the Ombudsman’s notes that a 2 metre distance may not always be easily achieved in all environments.
The Ombudsman can see that in July 2020 the contractor developed a detailed Health and Safety Operating Procedure in conjunction with the landlord. This was appropriate as it demonstrated that the contractor was taking steps to modify and improve its working practices in light of the developments of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In response to the resident’s concerns that the contractor’s operatives had wedged open doors the landlord confirmed that it had addressed the issue with the contractor to explain that this was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable first response so that the operatives could modify their working practices going forwards.
In response to the resident’s concerns that the contractor’s operatives were storing materials in the electrical meter riser cupboard the landlord explained that permission had been granted following a risk assessment, and because the items were not flammable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s explanation was reasonable to allay the resident’s concerns that the operatives’ use of the cupboard was not permissible. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns regarding hazardous materials and access to the cupboard by residents, however the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord confirmed that the materials were not stored overnight.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage one response approximately two months after the resident registered his complaint. The landlord provided its final response approximately two months after he requested to escalate his complaint.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s delay in progressing the resident’s complaint through its complaint process was unacceptable. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to progress in a timely fashion as this provides the best opportunity for a complaint process to act in a complementary manner to a landlord’s overall service delivery, enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed. In this case the landlord did not do so.
While the landlord did apologise for the delays in responding to the complaint at both stages of its process, the Ombudsman does not consider that the apology amounts to reasonable redress as it fails to take into account the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced as a result.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the requirement to carry out fire safety remedial works in the building which he owns a property in.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns that it was not responsible for works to upgrade or renew the front entrance door to the property which he owned.
3. Service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors were not adhering to health and safety procedures.
4. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the requirement to carry out fire safety remedial works in the building which he owns a property in

Since the landlord became the freeholder of the building it is complying with the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order as it is undertaking regular FRAs of the building to identity and mitigate risks.
In response to the FRA completed in February 2019 the landlord arranged a programme of works to address the recommendations made. This was appropriate as the works had been highlighted as necessary to improve the safety of the building.
In responding to the resident’s concerns regarding the need for the works the landlord provided a comprehensive explanation detailing the rationale for undertaking a Type 4 FRA.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it was not responsible for works to upgrade or renew the front entrance door to the property which he owned

The landlord significantly delayed in providing clarification to the resident regarding next steps regarding the property’s front entrance door on realising that its letter dated 18 May 2020 contained incorrect information. This was unsatisfactory, resulting in uncertainty and distress to the resident.
While it was appropriate that the landlord did confirm in November 2020 that it would be in touch with shared owners and leaseholders regarding their front doors, to ensure that they were compliant, it was inappropriate that no timeframe was provided by the landlord indicating when the discussion would begin. The landlord’s omission would have caused further uncertainty and distress to the resident on when a resolution would be achieved.
While the landlord did apologise that its letter dated 19 May 2020 contained incorrect information regarding the property’s front door, the apology alone does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not take into account that the landlord’s apology was provided approximately five months after the error was first identified in June 2020, or that on identification of the error no information was given to the resident detailing next steps for ensuring that the door was fire safety compliant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that its contractors were not adhering to health and safety procedures

While the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding social distancing by the contractor’s operatives, wedged doors and storage of materials was reasonable, as it confirmed that the issues would be addressed with the contractor where appropriate, it was inappropriate that the contractor’s operatives did not wear face masks during the works. This is because the contractor’s DRA set out that face masks were necessary as a control measure in relation to the spread of Covid-19.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord apologised that its complaint response were delayed, the apology alone does not amount to reasonable redress as it does not reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced as a result.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation:
1. £250 in relation to its handling of his concerns regarding the front door.
2. £100 in relation to health and safety procedures.
3. £100 in relation to its complaint handling.
The landlord should write to the resident (and any other leaseholders in the building) confirming the steps it will be taking to work with him to ensure that the property’s front door will be compliant. The letter should confirm timescales, even if provisional.
The landlord should comply with the orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they respond to complaints in accordance with best practice.