Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Onward Homes Limited (202311865)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311865

Onward Homes Limited

9 January 2025

 

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of fire alarms failing to activate during a fire at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2004. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident due to her diagnosis of PTSD, anxiety, depression, and impaired hearing.
  2. On 30 October 2021, a firework was put through the resident’s letterbox causing a fire. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2021 and said that the 2 installed fire alarms had not activated, and she had woken to smoke filling her bedroom. She had contacted the fire brigade and police.
  3. The landlord raised urgent jobs to inspect the fire alarms, and its operatives visited the resident the same day to discuss what had happened. An engineer visited the property on 3 November 2021 and found that the smoke alarm wires, while live, were not connected. The engineer returned on 12 November 2021 and fitted new alarms. He also discovered that the fuse spur powering the alarms had been turned off. He restored power and tested the alarms to ensure they were functional.
  4. The resident logged a complaint on 14 December 2021 about the fire alarms not working. In its stage 1 response of 21 December 2021 the landlord said that, while the resident believed it had disconnected the alarms following a leak 2 or 3 years ago, the only leak that affected the hallway ceiling was in 2009. It had tested the alarms yearly since then and its gas engineer had tested and passed both alarms on 15 February 2021; it provided a copy of its Gas Safety Record to the resident. It sympathised with her experience and concerns about the alarms’ failure but, based on the evidence available, it concluded that they had been in working order in February 2021 and it was unclear why they were not connected in October 2021. It said there was no evidence that the landlord or its contractors had disconnected the alarms.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 January 2022, saying the alarms were not tested during the gas engineer’s visit in February 2021. She said her mental health had been affected by the incident and she felt the landlord had not empathised with her, looking only to establish that it was not at fault. She was given a £60 decorating voucher, but the damage caused was greater than this.
  6. In its stage 2 response of 12 June 2023 the landlord said that it had installed 2 security lights, replaced the hallway skirting board, installed a draft excluder, renewed the PVCu front door, replaced and tested the smoke alarms, and issued a £60 decoration voucher. It was aware that the fire brigade had installed a fireproof letterbox. It repeated the explanation of its stage 1 response, adding that at the time of the fire alarm installation it had advised the resident of the importance of regularly testing the alarms and reporting faults immediately.
  7. The landlord reiterated that the available evidence showed the alarms were tested and passed in February 2021 and, therefore, it had found no service failure on its part. As a learning point from the resident’s complaint, it would continue to work closely with the fire and rescue service to promote fire safety to residents, including the importance of carrying out regular alarm tests.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in August 2023 she escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the fire alarms had never been tested during any of the landlord’s service visits. She was aware there was a leak in 2009, and she thought this was when the alarms were disconnected. She wanted an apology from the staff members who visited her on 1 November 2021, as they had not been empathetic of the impact on her, and an explanation for why the alarms did not work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. It is also not within this Service’s remit to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for damage to, or loss of, her belongings caused by the fire. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are usually claimed via its insurance. Therefore, it is not addressed further in this report. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
  3. It is also not this Service’s role to investigate or establish the conduct of staff, such as during the visit of 1 November 2021. Such personnel issues are better addressed by the landlord internally and are beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to determine (reflected at paragraph 42.h of the Scheme). We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members, or order remedies from individual staff such as personal apologies. However, we have assessed whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of fire alarms failing to activate

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and testing of fire alarms. It is also responsible for repairs of the property structure following fire damage. However, it is not responsible for damage or loss caused to the resident’s belongings or internal decorations she is responsible for; it strongly advises residents to arrange home contents insurance.
  2. The resident believes that the landlord disconnected the alarms following a leak either in 2009 or circa 2019. The landlord, however, has provided evidence that shows fire alarm tests were conducted and passed after both of these dates. The resident has provided pictures to this Service which show an expiry date of August 2020 on the fire alarms. It could be argued that the operative conducting the test in February 2021 should have noticed the expiry date and replaced them, but it is not known whether the test required him to remove the alarm from its casing.
  3. It is further noted that the reason why the alarms did not activate during the fire in October 2021 was because the wires were disconnected, and the fuse switch was turned off. Therefore, even if the fire alarms were expired, this was not the reason for their failure to activate on the night in question. Therefore, the matter of whether the fire alarms were expired is not considered further as it is not central to the crux of the complaint.
  4. The resident said that no alarm tests were ever conducted during visits to her property. This Service has seen evidence of the landlord’s enquiry about this with the contractor responsible for conducting the February 2021 test. The line manager of the operative who conducted the test interviewed him and confirmed that it was standard practice for these tests to be done; spare alarms were kept in the van to replace faulty ones. Further, the manager confirmed to the landlord that he had carried out 2 spot checks that year on the operative and he had correctly checked and recorded fire alarm tests on both occasions. There is no evidence that the tests were being recorded on paper but not then conducted in practice.
  5. It is the role of this Service to reach decisions based on the evidence available to it. While this Service does not doubt either party’s version of events, in the interest of fairness, it must rely on the evidence provided and avoid speculation. As such, it is not possible to say when the fire alarms were disconnected, why, or by whom. While the repair records do show that there was a leak in 2009 and again in 2019, and associated works were undertaken, the fire alarm tests post-date both leaks. Therefore, there is no evidence to say that the fire alarms were disconnected by the landlord and left that way in either 2009 or 2019.
  6. This investigation has instead considered whether the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures once made aware of the alarms’ failure. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out repairs it was responsible for; the damaged door was replaced and new alarms installed and tested.
  7. The landlord further engaged an independent contractor to carry out a fire directional alarm system survey in July 2024 to provide further reassurance to the resident. The survey confirmed that a fire alarm test was conducted and passed in September 2019; this was carried out by a different contractor from the one in February 2021. There is no evidence nor reason to believe that 2 separate contractors were fabricating fire alarm test results without conducting them.
  8. The resident said that the staff members who visited her on 1 November 2021 failed to show empathy or consideration for the impact on her of what had happened. As mentioned above, it is not this Service’s role to comment further on the conduct of staff or to order personal apologies. However, this Service has seen evidence that the landlord took what the resident said seriously and investigated by obtaining comments from the officer who visited in the company of a colleague from the repairs team. The landlord also apologised to the resident in October 2022 if its staff had left her feeling like they were focused on their individual roles within the situation instead of the impact on her. This is what the Ombudsman would expect to see from a landlord’s investigation and response.
  9. The resident was unhappy that the landlord only issued vouchers to the value of £60 for internal decoration. However, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was not responsible for fixing the damage caused internally; the vouchers appear to have been issued as a gesture of goodwill in consideration of the distress and upset the resident experienced.
  10. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report of fire alarms failing to activate during a fire at the resident’s property and no further action is necessary to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff or those acting on its behalf. It set out a 2-stage complaint process with timeframes for responding to complaints; 10 working days at stage 1 and 2 (keeping the resident informed where more time was needed).
  2. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 14 December 2021 and issued its stage 1 response on 21 December 2021, within the stipulated 10 working days. However, while the resident escalated her complaint on 9 January 2022, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 12 June 2023, a year and a half later. This was significantly outside the specified 10 working days in its complaint policy and this exacerbated an already stressful situation for the resident.
  3. The records show that the resident called and chased for a response and, while the landlord escalated this internally to members of staff, there is no evidence to explain why nothing further was done to investigate and respond to the complaint at stage 2. It was clear from the resident’s contact that she continued to experience distress and anxiety related to the fire incident and the landlord should have taken this seriously and treated it with the appropriate care and timeliness the situation warranted. It is not acceptable that, despite a clear request to escalate the complaint, it was lost within the landlord’s process with no explanations or updates provided to the resident.
  4. The above-mentioned failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint amount to maladministration. The landlord is therefore ordered to write to the resident with an apology for its failure. It is further ordered to pay the resident £200 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s suggested financial redress for instances of maladministration, detailed in its published remedies guidance.
  5. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and the Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  6. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the formal complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of fire alarms failing to activate during a fire at her property.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £200 compensation in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.