Network Homes Limited (202202443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202443

Network Homes Limited

12 May 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of fire safety concerns with her property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began 3 January 2005. The property is a two bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
Section three of the resident’s tenancy agreement lists the ‘tenant obligations’. It states that residents must allow the landlord access to the property to undertake repairs or maintenance works.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days.
Some of the resident’s complaints and communications with the landlord were made on her behalf by her mother. References to ‘the resident’ in this report will refer to either the resident or her mother. References to ‘the block’ in this report will refer to the main building in which the resident’s flat is situated.

Summary of events

On the morning of 15 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord’s fire safety inspector (FSI). Her email said she had not heard from the FSI since he had attended her property the previous month. She stated that the FSI had agreed that the gap around the door to her flat was too big, and that the door needed replacing. She said that she had initiated an audit with the London fire brigade and asked the landlord for an update on the works to her door.
On the afternoon of 15 March 2022, the resident emailed her complaint to the landlord. It stated that several months previously she had requested that the landlord assess the door to her flat. Her concern was that the door was supposed to have been temporary, and that it was hollow, not fireproof, and lacked the necessary self-closing device. She said that the landlord had not attended the resident’s property but had emailed her advising that the door to her flat was safe and met regulations. The key points of the resident’s complaint were as follows:
1. In February 2022, she had spoken with the landlord’s FSI while he was visiting the block. He had agreed that the door to her flat needed changing. The FSI had agreed to email her with further information, but she had heard nothing since.
2. In March 2022, she had opened her door to find the landlord’s fire safety manager (FSM) knelt down taking photographs of her door. The landlord’s FSM was with a fire inspector from the London fire brigade (LFB). They explained that they were assessing an intake cupboard adjacent to her door.
3. She had queried the replacement of her door, as she had heard nothing from the FSI. The landlord’s FSM explained that the FSI reported in to her, but that she was unaware of the door being replaced.
4. She had had queried why her door was being photographed. The FSM became defensive and told her that she can do what she likes, and did not need to explain it to the resident.
5. The FSM had explained that the landlord’s internal emails had raised concerns regarding the threshold to the resident’s flat, but not the door.
6. She had showed the LFB fire inspector that there was no closer on the door and that it was hollow. He had agreed that the door needed replacing. The FSM had advised that doors can take some time to be ordered.
7. She had found the FSM’s approach aggressive and dismissive, and felt that she had contradicted herself about the door. She reiterated that her only concern was the safety of her family.
The landlord and resident were also corresponding over email about other matters and complaints at that time. As part of this correspondence, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had logged a new complaint regarding her fire safety concerns on 16 March 2022.
The landlord sent the resident it’s stage one complaint response on 24 March 2022. It explained that due to the nature of the resident’s complaint, it had been investigated by the landlord’s executive whose directorate included fire safety. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord explained its understanding of the resident’s complaint, and that it had investigated the following:
  1. The resident’s concern that the door to her flat is not a fire door and poses an immediate fire risk to the household.
  2. That no further action had been taken despite the landlord’s FSI promising that the door would be replaced.
  3. The resident’s unhappiness with the professionalism of the landlord’s FSM when she attended the block with the LFB fire inspector.
2. The landlord’s complaint response said that the FSI had visited the block in February 2022 to familiarise himself ahead of the joint visit with the LFB. Whilst there, the resident had seen him and asked that he look at her door. The FSI had noted that the door had no self-closing device and would benefit from being realigned. The letterbox was also discussed.
3. The resident’s email sent a few hours before her complaint had expressed her concerns with the landlord’s lack of contact regarding a replacement door. The email had been referred to the landlord’s FSM as she was meeting a LFB fire inspector at the resident’s block that day. As such, the FSM had decided to look at the resident’s door whilst she was there, and ahead of discussing it with the FSI.
4. Whilst the FSM was looking at the bottom of the door, the resident had opened it. The FSM had stood up, shown her identification, and a discussion about the door took place. The landlord stated that the LFB fire inspector had confirmed the resident’s door was a ‘notional fire door’. The landlord explained that this meant that whilst the door could not be certified, it presented the expected products you would expect to find on a fire door.
5. The resident had queried the ‘stay put’ fire strategy for the block. The FSM had explained the rationale, and the LFB fire inspector had reaffirmed it.
6. The landlord’s FSM had advised the resident that she would need to discuss the door with the FSI. She assured the resident she would be contacted later the same day.
7. The FSM later discussed the resident’s door with the FSI. He strongly refuted having committed to replacing the door. The landlord’s internal discussions resulted in the following conclusions and recommendations:
  1. The resident’s existing door was a notional fire door and did not pose an immediate risk.
  2. A self-closing device should be installed on the resident’s door as soon as possible.
  3. A survey of all doors in the block was due to be completed within the next eight weeks, and the resident would be updated on any outcomes.
8. The landlord said it had reiterated those points to the resident, along with other fire safety information.
9. The landlord said that it had discussed the resident’s concerns regarding professionalism with the FSM, and was satisfied she had acted appropriately.
10. The landlord concluded that it had acted reasonably with regards to the concerns raised in the resident complaint, and confirmed it was not upheld.
11. A copy of the landlord’s current fire risk assessment for the resident’s block was attached to its stage one complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage two of its process on 24 March 2022. The resident’s email asked that the landlord also send the previous version of its fire risk assessment for the block. The key points of the resident’s escalation request were as follows:
1. The resident highlighted that the landlord’s FSI had failed to assess her door when it was first reported, and had also failed to email her as promised after he attended in February 2022.
2. The resident highlighted that the landlord’s FSM had not shown her identification and not introduced herself until the resident noted the landlord’s branding on her lanyard. The FSM had not spoken until prompted by the LFB fire inspector. The resident reiterated that the FSM had not acted professionally and had told the resident that ‘she could do what she likes, and did not have to explain it to you’.
3. The landlord had sent a surveyor to her property to look at the door. They had agreed the manufacturing of the door was fireproof, but the fitting, gaps and lack of closer were not. This would allow smoke to seep into the property, which was what the resident had said from the start.
4. The resident requested an update on the door that the FSI had told her was going to be replaced. She provided details of the conversation from when the FSI had said it was one of three on the list to be replaced in the block. She found it insulting that the landlord was calling her a liar about this.
5. The resident questioned why the fire risk assessment that the landlord provided had referred to the gap under the door of every flat in the block except hers.
6. The resident queried why nothing had already been done about the door gaps and lack of closing device, when the FSI had identified them in February 2022.
The landlord responded the same day on 24 March 2022, and provided the resident with a copy of the previous fire risk assessment for the block.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging her stage two complaint. It explained who would be carrying out the review, and that it would aim to respond by 27 April 2022.
On 28 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She highlighted that photographs used in the landlord’s 2019 fire risk assessment of the block had been reused in its current version. She said that recommendations from the 2019 fire risk assessment, including the replacement of doors, had not been carried out. She said that the landlord’s failures had put resident’s lives at risk. She asked for immediate action and not to have to wait up to eight weeks for the landlord’s door surveys.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident offering an appointment on either 31 March or 1 April 2022 to fit the closing device to the resident’s door.
On 30 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about various complaints. She commented that the door closer device would be of no use due to the gap around the door. The landlord emailed the resident again later the same day. It highlighted that the previous day she had been very critical that the door closer had not yet been fitted, but that she was now refusing it. It asked that she reconsider. The resident replied the same day, stating that she would not allow any works to be completed until the independent survey she had arranged for herself had been completed. She said she would provide the landlord with the results of that.
On 30 March 2022, the resident emailed the LFB and referred to their conversation earlier that day. She provided photographs of the door showing the gaps. She said the landlord was stalling on the repairs and had only proposed adding a door closing device. The LFB emailed the landlord the same day and asked for its comments on the matter. The landlord replied to the LFB the same day. It repeated the advice from its stage one compliant response regarding its door survey intentions for the whole block, and the fitting of a door closer at the resident’s property in the meantime. It said it had attempted to arrange an appointment to fit the door closer but the resident had refused it.
On 4 April 2022, the independent survey arranged by the resident was undertaken. The resident sent the accompanying ‘fire door inspection report’ to the landlord on 5 April 2022. The report summarised that the resident’s door had ‘failed’ the inspection. It listed a number of repairs that were required to the door. These included replacing the hinges, lockset and seals, easing and adjusting the door to achieve the correct gaps, and fitting a door closer which it noted was absent.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord’s internal email sent by a surveyor referred to the survey schedule at the resident’s block. It stated that, “Generally, the doors are in fair condition. However, there are a number of doors that require attention due to fair wear and tear or where gaps exceed the recommended gap size.” It went on to say, “I would recommend in view of the number of repair works necessary it may be advised for all flat and common parts doors be upgraded in a future door renewal programme”.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter to the resident. The letter broke down the resident’s concerns into headings, and provided its findings to each as follows:
1. Disagreement with the version of events and discussions between the resident and the landlord’s FSM and FSI.
  1. The landlord had discussed the issues raised by the resident with the FSM and FSI. It had also reviewed all email correspondence with the resident, but had not found anything to support the resident’s comments.
  2. It accepted that it was not possible for it to know for certain what was said in person, and apologised that it had left the resident feeling aggrieved.
2. Disagreement that the resident’s flat door and the communal door are fit for purpose.
  1. The landlord repeated its findings from the stage one response, and its assurance that the resident’s existing door presented no immediate risk.
  2. It explained it had been working on an extensive door review programme in recent years, prioritised by the highest risk. The current survey of all doors in the resident’s block had been commissioned prior to her contact and was due to conclude shortly. Works would be determined from that.
  3. It would always try to complete any works by the target date in the fire risk assessments (FRA). Where it was not able to, the landlord would work with its independent risk assessor to ensure delays and actions were reasonable.
  4. It accepted works had been identified in the 2019 FRA that had not yet been carried out, but it had demonstrated its commitment to complete the work to its independent risk assessor and the LFB.
3. The resident did not dispute the door was a notional fire door, nor that a notional fire door would suffice. It was the gaps around the door that was the issue, which the landlord was avoiding.
  1. The landlord acknowledged that as a result of this view, the resident had arranged her own door inspection by an independent company, and presented the landlord the findings. The landlord said that this did not change its stance.
  2. It noted the resident’s independent findings had stated her door was in need of repair rather than replacement. It reiterated its commitment to complete the works following its survey.
  3. It stated the level of risk the resident was presenting did not reflect the actual risk. As such, it had not sought immediate replacement of her door.
4. Concern with the accuracy of the 2019 or 2021 FRA, as the same photographs had been included in both.
  1. The landlord explained that actions from an FRA that were not completed would be carried over to the next FRA and hence the repetition of photographs.
  2. The landlord stated that it was not the author of the FRA and was unable to amend them.
  3. The landlord said it was assured that nothing untoward was at play but had fed back how the repetition of photographs between two FRA could be perceived by residents.
5. The 2021 FRA contained issues highlighted in the 2019 FRA that had not been completed. The landlord accepted that this was the case and referred to its earlier explanation. It confirmed that all outstanding actions were assigned and would be completed.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response concluded by reiterating its commitment to fit the door closer. It highlighted that the resident had previously been very critical that it had not yet been fitted, and had continued to ask when it would be. It stated that the resident had more recently refused access for the door closer to be fitted, and it asked that she reconsider this. The landlord’s complaint response letter finished by stating that it hoped the resident felt she had been listened to, and referred her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 25 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that following the completion of its door surveys, it had decided to replace all flat entry and communal doors at the block. It explained that this was part of a larger programme of works, which it aimed to be complete before the end of the financial year. It advised it would fit the closer device to the resident’s existing door in the meantime, and that it had booked that job in for 30 May 2022.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord’s internal email confirmed it had attended the resident’s property to fit the door closing device, but had not gained access.
On 7 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident stating that it remained keen to install the door closer. It asked that the resident confirm that she would allow access, and that she advise her upcoming availability in order that the job could be booked in. The landlord has said it did not receive a response from the resident.
In May 2023, the landlord confirmed to this Service that the door closer had still not been fitted at the resident’s property. It also confirmed that a further survey at the resident’s block had been completed and that following approval of the quotation, there would be a six to eight week lead time for the new doors to be delivered. It provided evidence of its intended works, which included the replacement of the resident’s door.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s complaint was sent to the landlord on 15 March 2022. It referred to a query she said she had made to the landlord some months prior to her complaint, regarding the safety of her door. The resident also referred to the emailed response she said she had received from the landlord to that query, and the landlord’s failure to assess the door at that time.
As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman requested a copy of that email from both the landlord and the resident, but it was not provided. The landlord explained that it had previously completed a subject access request for the resident and so had done a thorough search of all emails concerning the resident, which it had provided copies of to her. It said it had repeated the search for the Ombudsman but was unable to find the requested email. The landlord’s stage two complaint response sent on 27 April 2022 also made reference to this point. It stated that it had, “not found anything that is agreeable with your comments”. As such, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there is no evidence to support the claim that the landlord failed to appropriately assess the resident’s door some months prior to the complaint.
The resident’s complaint also referred to her discussion with the landlord’s FSI at her property in February 2022. The Ombudsman asked what specific date this took place, but neither the landlord nor the resident could confirm. The FSI had apparently only been familiarising himself with the block and so it was not an appointed visit to the resident.
During the course of this investigation, the landlord has told this Service that the FSI visit to the block may have in fact been in March 2022, but that it was unable to confirm or evidence this. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s statement that the visit was in February 2022 when she made it at the time of her complaint. Its stage one complaint response letter also stated, “Our records show that in February 2022 the Fire Safety Inspector visited..” (it went on to name the resident’s block). As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the visit occurred in February 2022, and it is not disputed that the FSI spoke with the resident about her door at his visit. The landlord and resident disputed each other’s account of that discussion. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss this with the FSI and his manager, but also to accept that it was not possible for it to know for certain what had been said.
However, it is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord was aware from this point that the resident’s door did not have a self-closing device, and the resident stated as much in her complaint escalation request sent to the landlord on 24 March 2022. Self-closing devices help prevent the spread of fire and are required in multi-occupied residential buildings, including on flat entrance doors that lead into the common parts of the building. The lack of a self-closing device on the resident’s door was again noted by the landlord when it attended the block with the LFB inspector on 15 March 2022.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days. It is therefore not reasonable that the landlord’s first reference to the need to fit a self-closing device to the resident’s door as soon as possible, was not until it sent its stage one complaint response on 24 March 2022. Even assuming that the landlord’s FSI visit to the block occurred towards the end of February 2022, it was at the very least a month until the landlord first attempted to book the work in with the resident on 29 March 2022, and only after the resident had chased it via her complaint. The landlord was aware the resident was very concerned about fire safety, and as such it is understandable that this delay may have worsened her concerns.
The Ombudsman has made an order below regarding this delay, and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its failing. The order is informed by the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. It considers that the failing was short in duration, as the landlord should have attempted to arrange for a self-closing device to be fitted to the resident’s door at some point between an unknown date in February 2022 and early-to-mid March 2022 (this is based on the FSI identifying the lack of self-closing device in the latter part of February 2022). The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance also gives consideration to the level of impact on the resident. This includes the disappointment, time and trouble the resident experienced, but also that it did not significantly affect the overall outcome. This is because the resident subsequently refused access for the self-closing device to be fitted, as detailed below.
In her email to the landlord on 30 March 2022, the resident refused to allow it to carry out the installation of the self-closing device to her door until her own independent survey was completed. After the resident’s own survey had been completed, it was reasonable that the landlord was able to evidence several attempts to encourage the resident to allow the works to go ahead, including in its stage two complaint response sent on 27 April 2022. The landlord was unable to get the resident’s agreement, and it was appropriate for it to go ahead with booking the works anyway. The resident was advised the landlord would attend on 30 May 2022, but the landlord did not gain access to fit the self-closing device.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that tenants must allow the landlord access to the property to undertake repairs or maintenance works. As such, the resident’s refusal to allow the self-closing device to be fitted could amount to a breach of her tenancy agreement. Given the safety critical nature of the work, the Ombudsman would expect to have seen evidence that the landlord had considered use of its breach of tenancy process to gain access to the resident’s property to install the self-closing device, including legal action were it necessary. There was no evidence that the landlord tried anything more than asking the resident to agree to the work, and that it had accepted that the work would not be done when she had refused. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the self-closing device was never installed. The actions of the landlord were therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response letter commented on the independent fire door inspection report the resident had arranged for herself. It was appropriate for the landlord to note that the report had recommended repairs rather than renewal of the door. This was in line with the comments of the landlord’s FSI at his February 2022 visit to the block that were explained in its stage one complaint response, and said that the door needed a self-closing device and would benefit from being realigned. It was also appropriate to advise the resident about its imminent survey of the block, and for the landlord to commit to undertaking the works it identified, including the renewal of doors.
The landlord responded appropriately to the remainder of the resident’s concerns, and to her complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with copies of its previous and current risk assessments, and explain its processes for managing risk and prioritising recommended fire safety works. It was appropriate to explain that her door was a notional fire door and that, in its view, the actual level of risk was not what she had stated.
It is acknowledged that the resident’s door will be replaced in the coming months. However, it is of concern to the Ombudsman that some 18 months will have passed by that time, since the landlord became aware that the resident’s door lacked a self-closing device and was in need of realignment. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord has failed to consider the options available to it to resolve this, and that this constitutes maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fire safety concerns with her property.

Reasons

Once the landlord became aware in February 2022 that the resident’s door did not have a self-closing device, there was unreasonable delay in it arranging to have one fitted, and a failure to acknowledge this in its complaint response to the resident. This was further compounded by the landlord’s failure to consider taking appropriate tenancy enforcement action to ensure the necessary work to the resident’s door was completed.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the identified service failure, and provide her with an up to date schedule and likely timescale for the forthcoming works;
2. pays the resident £100 compensation for its delay in attempting to arrange the required safety work;
3. reviews its process for dealing with resident access refusals for safety related works, and informs this Service of its outcome and proposed changes.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.