London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231549

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

1 May 2024

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The smoke and carbon monoxide alarms in the property.
2. The alternative accommodation provided following a fire.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord said it is aware that the resident is disabled and a permanent wheelchair user. The property has been adapted to meet the resident’s needs. The resident resides at the property with her 2 adult children.
On 4 November 2021, at approximately 12:30 am, there was a fire in the property and the fire brigade attended. The fire caused substantial damage to the property and the resident’s belongings. The resident’s cat also died because of the fire.
On 17 November 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. The smoke alarms in the property did not activate when the fire broke out. The resident said she was unable to reach the smoke alarms to test them as she is a permanent wheelchair user.
2. The landlord should have fitted a “waist height” wall-mounted panel so that she could test the smoke alarms.
3. There was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property.
4. She did not have any contents insurance.
5. The landlord did not offer any accommodation on the night of the fire. The resident said while the landlord had since offered her temporary accommodation, it was not accessible or suitable for her needs.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. It was sorry for the distress and upset the fire had caused the resident. The landlord said the cause of the fire was a battery charger for an electric bike.
2. It was unable to determine if the fire activated the smoke alarms. The landlord said its maintenance team and the fire brigade would review this.
3. The testing of the smoke alarms was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord said if the resident could not test the smoke alarms, then she should have informed the landlord.
4. It would consider any additional support needs the resident may require after it repairs the property.
5. It would only install a carbon monoxide alarm where there is an open flue, solid fuel appliance, a boiler in a bedroom or where a resident had requested one. The landlord said it could arrange to install a carbon monoxide alarm in the property.
6. The resident could submit an insurance claim with its insurer for any damage to her belongings.
7. It had moved the resident and her family when she informed it that she could not stay with family or friends. The landlord said it offered the resident a disabled serviced unit on 14 November 2021. It said it offered the resident’s 2 adult children an additional unit in the same complex. The landlord explained that the unit had 2 separate beds for the resident’s children.
8. It could search for another adapted unit for the resident, but there was limited availability in the area for a property that met the resident’s needs.
9. Works to the property would commence once its loss adjusters had completed a schedule of works. The landlord said it was unable to provide a timescale for the repair works.
On 13 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said:
1. The smoke alarms in the property did not work. The resident said she was unaware she had to check the smoke alarms and the landlord was aware that she was a wheelchair user. The resident said she was unaware that she could have a wall-mounted wall panel fitted.
2. She had lost valuables, personal belongings and her pet cat in the fire. The resident said that because the smoke alarms did not activate, the fire caused more damage to the property.
3. The landlord had not contacted her to complete a welfare check. The resident said she went to her sister’s property on the night of the fire as the landlord had told her that there was nowhere else that she could go. The resident said she went to stay with other family members, but the property was not suitable for her needs. The resident said she wanted payment for her hotel costs and a “friends and family payment”.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in finding the resident suitable accommodation. The landlord said the delays were between 4 November 2021 and 14 November 2021, which is when it had offered the resident an accessible unit. The landlord offered the resident £320 compensation for the distress and inconvenience because of the delays.
On 7 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request, the resident said:
1. She was unhappy with the level of compensation that the landlord had offered and wanted compensation for her damaged belongings.
2. She was unhappy with the level of communication from the landlord.
3. The issue had caused her a significant amount of distress and inconvenience.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. It had no evidence to confirm whether the smoke alarms had sounded.
2. The resident would need to request an Occupational Therapist assessment to discuss the installation of a more suitable device for the smoke alarms. The landlord provided the resident with details of her local GP, where she could request an Occupational Therapist assessment.
3. An officer would complete a “welcome visit” and determine whether the resident required any further support.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. The landlord had not installed an adapted panel to test/control the smoke alarms.
2. She wanted compensation for damage to her personal belongings.
3. She was unhappy that the smoke alarms did not activate during the fire. The resident said that this contributed to the level of damage caused in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms and a carbon monoxide alarm in the property

It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the smoke alarms sounded in response to the fire. There is no conclusive evidence in this regard and the Ombudsman was not present. The Ombudsman has therefore considered if the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the smoke alarms was reasonable or not.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2015 (as amended by Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2022) impose a legal requirement on social landlords of accommodation occupied under a tenancy or license to ensure that there is:
1. A smoke alarm on each storey of a property which contains a room being used, wholly or partly, as ‘living accommodation’.
2. A carbon monoxide alarm in any room being used as ‘living accommodation’ where there is a ‘fixed combustion appliance’ (such as flues).
This was only applicable to social landlords from 1 October 2022. Before that, it was accepted practice for social landlords to ensure there was a smoke alarm in their properties. The evidence shows that the landlord complied with the relevant regulation requirements by ensuring it installed a smoke alarm in the property. There is no evidence that the property has a solid fuel appliance in a room which the resident uses as living accommodation. However, when the resident requested a carbon monoxide alarm, the landlord said it would install one in the property.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that the resident is responsible for smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. This includes testing smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and replacing the batteries. This would only be where the alarm was not fixed to any mains. When alarms are ‘hard wired’, the landlord would be responsible for their maintenance and repair. This is confirmed in the landlord’s “Your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant” document and the ‘Routine Repairs Responsibilities’ policy.
The government guidance, on the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022, states:

“Landlords will be responsible for repairing or replacing any faulty alarms.

If tenants find that their alarms are not in working order during the tenancy, they are advised to arrange for the replacement of the batteries.

If the alarm still does not work after replacing the batteries, or if tenants are unable to replace the batteries themselves, they should report this to the relevant landlord.”

“How should a tenant test their alarms to check they are in working order?

Testing of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms does not require specialist skills or knowledge and should be straightforward for tenants to do.

Landlords should consider providing residents with a demonstration and/or instructions to support resident understanding of how, and how often, to test their smoke alarms and make sure they are in working order.”

“What should tenants do if they find their alarm isn’t working?

If tenants find that their alarms are not in working order during the tenancy, they are advised to arrange for the replacement of the batteries.

If the alarm still does not work after replacing the batteries, or if tenants are unable to replace the batteries themselves, they should report this to the relevant landlord.”

“Are specialist alarms required for people with disabilities?

Landlords should make an informed decision and choose the best alarms for their properties and tenants, with due regard for their residents’ circumstances.

For example, specialist smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms that alert by vibration or flashing lights (as opposed to by sound alerts) may be required for residents who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Landlords should/must consider their duties under the Equality Act 2010.”

The landlord’s fire safety policy states it will complete a “person-centred risk assessment” to identify residents at greater risk from fire. However, it appears that the resident did not meet the criteria for this assessment. There is also no evidence that the landlord received an occupational health assessment to advise that changes were required to any smoke alarms or that the resident required a person-centred risk assessment.
The resident said she has resided in the property for 22 years. British Standard BS 5839-6:2019+A1:2020 (the standards) covers specific recommendations for fire alarm systems in all domestic premises. The standards state that smoke alarms should be tested every month.
As it was the resident’s responsibility to test the smoke alarms, it would have been reasonable for the resident to inform the landlord if she was unable to test them. There is no evidence that the resident reported any faults with the smoke alarms or that she could not test them.
If the landlord did not know that the resident was unable to test the smoke alarms, it could not have reasonably foreseen that there was a requirement to have a waist-high smoke alarm panel. While the landlord was aware that the resident is a wheelchair user, it was not reasonably foreseeable that the landlord would have considered all aids and adaptations in the property, other than those identified by a suitably qualified Occupational Therapist.
It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations made by an Occupational Therapist. The Ombudsman understands that an Occupational Therapist made several recommendations for aids and adaptations in 2014. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that these recommendations included a wall-mounted smoke alarm panel. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any recent occupational health assessments.
Importantly, there is no evidence of fault for four reasons:
1. There is no evidence the resident or the Occupational Therapist ever raised the need to amend the location of the alarm for testing.
2. There is no evidence that the resident made any reports to the landlord that the alarm was not working before the fire. Therefore, it cannot reasonably be said that its obligation to repair the alarm (if hardwired) arose or that the landlord should have assisted her testing it as a reasonable adjustment.
3. The Ombudsman cannot say, based on the documentary evidence, whether the alarm sounded or not.
4. Even if the Ombudsman accepted the alarm did not sound, there is no evidence that the outcome would have been different had it sounded.
The resident has requested compensation for her damaged belongings because of the fire. Section 5(b) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord advises residents to “take out home contents insurance” and it is “generally not responsible for any losses” the resident suffers.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s insurer declined the resident’s claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord.
The resident has explained that the issue has had a significant impact on her mental well-being. The Ombudsman recognises that this is an extremely difficult situation for the resident as many of her personal possessions, which held sentimental value, cannot be replaced. This cannot be understated.
However, based on the documentary evidence available, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the smoke alarms and the carbon monoxide alarm was reasonable. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this was an extremely distressing time for the resident, the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and clearly explained the reason for its decisions.
However, the Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the installation of a carbon monoxide alarm as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not already done so. The landlord should also support the resident with accessing an occupational health assessment for any adaptations which the resident may require regarding the smoke alarm systems in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about alternative accommodation provided to her following the fire

The resident said she went to stay with her sister on the night of the fire. The resident said she contacted the landlord the next day and explained that her sister’s property was not suitable for her needs. It appears that the landlord provided the resident with hotel accommodation at some time between 4 and 14 November 2021. However, it is not clear what date the resident moved into the hotel. The landlord said it offered the resident an accessible serviced unit on 14 November 2021. The resident said the unit was not suitable for her and her children’s needs. The resident therefore returned to the hotel on 14 November 2021.
The Ombudsman is unable to assess the suitability of the accommodation based on the documentary evidence available. The Ombudsman has therefore considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the accommodation was not suitable for her needs.
In this case, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 November 2021 and explained it had sourced an accessible unit, but the resident’s children would need to stay in a separate unit in the same complex. The landlord said the unit was available for the resident to move into on 14 November 2021. The landlord explained that this was the only unit it had available that was accessible.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained why it felt the accessible serviced unit was suitable, it explained the sleeping arrangements for the resident’s children and asked the resident if she wanted it to look at other adapted units. The evidence shows that the landlord also investigated the resident’s concerns with its insurer to request if there were other properties available. It sought their response to the points which the resident raised and reviewed its availability of adapted properties. The landlord confirmed that due to availability, the serviced unit was the only property it had available.
It is not clear if the landlord liaised with relevant departments or whether it consulted the opinion of an Occupational Therapist to assess the suitability of the accommodation. However, the landlord said it had limited availability of properties that would meet the resident’s needs. The landlord said it would also assess any additional costs the resident had incurred when she returned to the hotel on 14 November 2021.
The Ombudsman does not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time. Social housing is limited and only a limited number of homes became available each year. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to liaise with relevant departments within the local authority to support the resident with accessing temporary accommodation. In this case, the landlord provided the resident with temporary accommodation where she resided for approximately 14 months.
However, there was a delay of 10 days in the landlord offering the resident an accessible property. The landlord offered the resident an accessible serviced unit on 14 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged that there was an unreasonable delay in it offering the resident accessible accommodation. The landlord offered the resident £320 compensation for the distress and inconvenience the delays caused. However, the offer was after it had issued its stage 1 response. It is not clear why the landlord offered the compensation outside of its stage 1 response.
Regardless of this, the landlord said its offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, and in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance, the offer of compensation for the delay was reasonable.
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord throughout 2022 about concerns about the suitability of the accommodation. There is also no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident in the 14-month period to update her on whether any other accessible units were available. However, the resident confirmed her intention to return to the property after the landlord has completed repairs. The landlord explained that repair works to the property would take more than 9 to 12 months due to the level of damage the fire had caused. The landlord therefore reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the time it would take to complete repairs.
While the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the 14-month period could have been improved, the evidence shows that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the accommodation it had provided. The landlord also acknowledged the delays in providing the resident with an accessible property and offered compensation to her.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

While the landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint within 9 working days, it did not respond to the resident’s escalation request until 263 working days later. This was 243 working days in excess of the landlord’s complaints policy which states it will respond to escalation requests within 20 working days. The delay was not appropriate.
The landlord failed to explain why there was such a significant delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request. In addition, it did not acknowledge the delays or offer compensation in its stage 2 response.
From the correspondence provided by the landlord, there is reference to a £200 compensation payment, which the landlord appears to have offered in recognition of the delays in providing its stage 2 response. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has paid the compensation to the resident or that the resident accepted the compensation.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Had the landlord offered the resident this compensation during its complaints process, a finding of reasonable redress may have been found. However, the landlord’s additional compensation offer occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms and a carbon monoxide alarm in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about alternative accommodation provided to her following a fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report.
2. Pay £250 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The total compensation replaces the compensation offered by the landlord for the delays in its complaint handling. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the £320 compensation it offered to the resident for the delays in offering accessible accommodation, if it has not already done so.
2. Contact the resident to discuss the installation of a carbon monoxide alarm as offered in its stage 1 response, if it has not done so already.
3. Contact the resident and support her with accessing an occupational health assessment for adaptations to the smoke alarm systems, if it has not done so already.
4. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding payments with regards to the hotel accommodation it provided.
5. Consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Complaint Handling Code.