Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202010867)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010867

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

17 October 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the front (fire) door replacement.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised about asbestos. 
    3. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the eighth floor of a block. His tenancy commenced on 5 January 2004.
  2. The resident has mental health issues and suffers from PTSD and this is noted in the landlord’s records. Both the parties refer to the resident having been sectioned in the past however there is no evidence of this having happened during timeframe reviewed in this investigation.
  3. On 13 September 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding  the length of time taken for his front door (fire door) to be replaced, advising the issue had been ongoing for a year.
  4. On 4 October 2019, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response stating  it was sorry for the delay in fitting his new front (fire) door. It explained that there was a hold on fitting new doors at that time due to the new ‘Fensa’ regulation for fire doors and that it was currently in negotiation with its contractors to manufacture the door. It said it was expecting its contractor to be in a position to fit the new door in November 2019 and that he would be contacted then.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in December 2020 regarding the landlord’s handling of the replacement front (fire) door and also raised a concern regarding asbestos in his home. We wrote to the landlord on 23 December 2020 asking it to provide a written response to the resident’s complaint.
  6. On 22 June 2021, the resident informed the Ombudsman that he had not received any written complaint response from the landlord since his previous contact in December 2020. On 22 June 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint previously raised within five working days.
  7. The landlord’s complaint log indicates it called the resident on 30 June 2021 and arranged with him an appointment for a survey of the front door and asbestos inspection on 5 July 2021. On 2 July 2021 the resident called the landlord to rearrange this appointment for 12 July 2021 due to initially being out of the country and then due to having to go to hospital.
  8. On 8 July 2021, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it had been liaising with the resident for some time in regards to resolving the outstanding issues at his property. It referenced the resident’s “extended unavailability due to medical reasons” but said since his return to the property it had resumed its attempts to carry out an asbestos inspection. It confirmed it would provide a stage two complaint response to the resident. 
  9. On 12 July 2021, the landlord attended the property to carry out the planned survey of resident’s front door to assess the fire risk and to establish if asbestos was present at the property.
  10. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two final complaint response on 19 July 2021. This stated the resident’s complaint concerned:
    1. Potential asbestos within the property.
    2. A new front (fire) door that needed to be fitted, which was damaged by the police and the length of time this had taken.
    3. Compensation with regard to his complaint.
  11. It said it was sorry for the length of time taken to replace his front door. It explained it had attempted to gain access to carry out a “FRA and asbestos survey” of his front door, but had been unable to do so due to his availability. It advised however that since the last cancelled appointment, it had now visited his home on 12 July 2021 to carry out a new asbestos and door survey and it awaited the results. It confirmed that the door replacement would be done free of charge.
  12. Regarding his request for compensation, it offered a £150 discretionary payment for inconvenience and delay. It stated it had now fully considered his complaint and therefore it was now closed.
  13. On 2 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident attaching the survey results from the asbestos survey. It stated that:
    1. His flat front door does not contain asbestos.
    2. His flat front door’s fire integrity had been compromised due to the damage sustained therefore it would arrange for a replacement door.
  14. It also advised that based on the targeted refurbishment survey, his ceilings in the entrance hall had a textured coating applied to the concrete structure, in a stipple pattern. This is classed as a textured coating which did contain asbestos (Chrysotile, white). It explained that asbestos materials in good condition were safe unless asbestos fibres become airborne, which happened when materials were incorrectly worked on, damaged or disturbed. Its general approach is to leave asbestos materials in place unless the condition or job requirements warrant removal.
  15. It confirmed that it had been recommended that the HSE licensed Asbestos contractor carry out remedial action to the material. Where the textured coating was damaged it would carry out a scrape and seal to prevent fibres becoming airborne. As an ACM (Asbestos Containing Material), it monitored its condition as part of a Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012 compliant management strategy. It advised it would be in contact to arrange undertaking the works. The landlord has provided the results of the asbestos survey to this Service which confirm that the samples taken were tested and the coating to the ceiling above the door was found to be asbestos. 
  16. On 3 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that he had asked for the results from the asbestos test but had not received this yet. The landlord re-sent these to the resident on 13 September 2021.
  17. In response to the Ombudsman’s further evidence request, the landlord advised on 11 October 2022 that it had contacted the resident regarding works to be carried out to the corridor ceiling and confirmed that a further appointment had been made for 18 October 2022 for works to be carried out: “to encapsulate further scrapes on the ceiling”. Regarding the replacement of the front door, it said it spoke with the resident recently to let him know it was due to appoint a new composite door supplier.
  18. It stated that once in place his door replacement would be prioritised and it anticipates this would be replaced before the end of 2022. The landlord said its previous supplier had refused to carry out the replacement door due to the resident’s previous behaviour including verbally abusing one of their team. Their policy is that they will not undertake work that may put their operatives in danger.

Assessment and findings

The front (fire) door replacement

  1. The terms and conditions to the resident’s tenancy agreement state  that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property and for keeping in proper working order all fixtures and fittings.
  2. The parties have both indicated that the resident’s front (fire) door needed replacing due to an incident whereby the Police caused damage by breaking down the door due to a possible medical emergency.  This service has not been provided with any further details for example the date of the incident. However, the resident first complained to the landlord about a delay with replacing his front (fire) door on 13  September 2019 when he said the matter had been “going on” for a year.
  3. This Service has not seen the evidence of the resident’s communication with the landlord regarding this issue prior to his complaint. However, as the landlord  acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its stage one complaint response, this indicates there had been a prior delay on the part of the landlord, albeit the exact length is unclear. The landlord explained in its stage one response of 4 October 2019, that there had been a hold on fitting new doors due to the new Fensa regulation for fire doors and said that it was currently in negotiation with its contractors to manufacture the door.
  4. Again this Service has not had sight of the landlord’s communications with its contractor in this regard however as  Fensa monitors Building Regulation compliance for replacement doors and windows, the landlord’s explanation in this regard is plausible. Within its response, as the landlord apologised, explained the delay, gave a timescale for when its contractor would fit the front door (November 2019) and said the relevant team would get in touch with him, the landlord’s approach to resolve the complaint was reasonable at this point.
  5. However, there is no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident in November 2019 in relation to fitting the door as indicated. It is clear that the landlord only contacted the  resident regarding this issue on 30 June 2021 when it called to arrange a survey for the door. This was following communication from the Ombudsman on two occasions  in December 2020 and June 2021 after the resident complained  to us about the lack of action taken by the landlord in regard to this issue.
  6. Whilst there is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord during the period  from November 2019 until his contact with this Service in December 2020,  the landlord was expected to update the resident regarding any delays with the works it had promised. There is no evidence to show that it did.  Further, after escalating his complaint, the landlord had an opportunity to explain why the front (fire) door had not been fitted when agreed as well as why there was a further delay until 30 June 2021. The landlord’s internal note dated 24 June 2021 suggests there was an issue with its contractor having the right type of front door, however, it did not state this in its final response to the resident dated 19 July 2021. Rather it referred to not being given access to carry out the surveys due to the resident’s unavailability.  The landlord said the same to the Ombudsman advising that the resident was hospitalised for a period of time causing a delay and break in communication. 
  7. Evidence of the landlord’s communications with the resident only indicates a minor delay for this reason from 5 July 2021, the date of the landlord’s visit, to 12 July 2021, when the resident rescheduled the visit. On balance, the landlord is responsible for the majority of delay since November 2019 in fitting the resident’s new front door as it has not demonstrated that there have been events outside of its control that prevented it progressing the fitting of a new front door.
  8. In its final response the landlord apologised for the delay, offered £150 in compensation for the inconvenience caused and reiterated it would replace his front (fire) door. Whilst this shows the landlord took further steps to put right the failure to provide its service to the expected standard,  on balance, the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the length of delay experienced. As it also failed to provide any timescale for the replacement door in its final response, the landlord did not adequately resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  9. Furthermore, it is clear from the landlord’s 11 October 2022 communication to the Ombudsman that it has still not replaced the resident’s front (fire) door indicating a further lengthy delay.
  10. Whilst the landlord told us that its previous supplier refused to carry out the replacement door due to the resident previous’ behaviour, it did not make this point in its complaint responses nor have we been provided any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about any access or behavioural issues. Therefore, as we have not been provided with any further information about this, this point does not justify the delay or affect the findings in this complaint.

The resident’s concerns raised about Asbestos

  1. In regards to the resident’s concern raised about asbestos, there is no evidence of the resident logging a complaint with the landlord regarding this issue prior to him raising this concern with the Ombudsman in December 2020. Following our requests to the landlord in December 2020 and June 2021 to respond to this issue, it arranged for a surveyor to check  potential asbestos in the entrance hall ceilings at the property. This survey took place on 12 July 2021 at the same time it surveyed the front (fire) door for the replacement. This action was confirmed in its final response when it also advised that it was awaiting the results of the asbestos survey.
  2. It was appropriate for the landlord to survey the property for asbestos as work to replace the front door might disturb any asbestos in the ceiling at the entrance hall. Nonetheless, as with the front door, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have carried out the survey sooner than it did after this was raised in December 2020. The landlord did not explain this delay in its final response.
  3. On 2 August 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident the presence of asbestos in the hallway ceiling and advised it would follow the recommendation  that the material had remedial action undertaken by its HSE licensed asbestos contractor. The landlord said its teams would be in contact with the resident to arrange undertaking the works, which shows a reasonable approach by the landlord to resolve this issue.
  4. The comments in the asbestos survey provided to this Service do not suggest the asbestos within the property had been disturbed or was dangerous, however having identified the need for remedial work, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have carried out this work promptly. It is clear from the landlord’s communication to the Ombudsman on 11 October 2022, that despite its commitment to do so, it has not yet carried out the promised remedial work to the asbestos found at the property, indicating an unreasonable delay. This shows the landlord has not acted with sufficient urgency in dealing with this issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaint process and its complaint policy states the landlord will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two final response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord did not provide any response to the resident following contact from the Ombudsman on 23 December 2020 asking it to provide a written response to the resident’s complaints regarding its handling of the front (fire) door replacement and asbestos. It was only after the Ombudsman contacted it on a second occasion  on 22 June 2021 did it log the resident’s complaint, escalate it to stage two of its complaint process and then provide a response to the resident. This is evidence of it failing to follow its complaints process.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to register or respond to the resident’s complaint even after the Ombudsman had requested it do so shows it did follow the requirements set out in our Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to acknowledge and log a complaint within five days of receipt and provide a response within ten days (at stage one) and  twenty days (at stage two).

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration  by the landlord in respect of its handling of the front (fire) door replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration  by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns raised about asbestos.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were unreasonable and ongoing delays with fitting the resident’s new front door which the landlord did not adequately explain in its complaint responses. Although it took some steps to put right the service failure, as it did not follow up on further promises made in its final response to fit the front (fire) door, the landlord has failed to effectively resolve this aspect of the complaint.
  2. There was a delay in arranging an asbestos survey after this issue was raised however when the results of the survey confirmed the presence of asbestos, the landlord promised to carry out the remedial work identified as needed. As this work remains outstanding, this shows that the landlord has not acted with sufficient urgency when dealing with this issue.
  3. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint raised via the Ombudsman in December 2020 at first opportunity, only after it was chased for a response.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident a further £650 in compensation based on:
      1. £300 for delays in fitting the replacement front (fire) door.
      2. £200 for failing to follow up on this and its commitment to undertake remedial action to asbestos confirmed in his home.
      3. £150 for not following its complaints process.
    2. Demonstrate how it will ensure complaints received from resident via the Ombudsman are followed up on promptly and within the timescales stated in its complaint process.
    3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
    4. Attend the scheduled visit of the property on 18 October 2022 as advised and ensure the promised works to the asbestos and the replacement door are completed within eight weeks of the visit.