Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202516705)

Background

1. The property is a flat on the 11th floor of a high-rise building. In 2023 all residents were told major works were going to be done on the whole building, including mandatory fire safety works.
2. Part of this was installing a new smoke extract system. Until the new system was in place, additional fire safety measures had to be taken, including removing some windows and doors from communal corridors. This would allow cross ventilation should those areas become filled with smoke. This work was done outside the property and forms the basis of the complaint.

What the complaint is about

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about communal works.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about communal works.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged shortfalls in communication and timescales and the impact it had on the resident. It offered appropriate remedy to put things right
6. The landlord was slightly over its target timescales in issuing its complaint responses. It managed the resident’s expectations about this with clear updates and offered proportionate remedy to the identified failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord had regular and clear consultation with residents about the major programme of works before it began. Residents had the opportunity to meet the contractor and ask questions at drop-in sessions.
8. It was mandatory, and in accordance with fire safety advice, for the landlord to remove glass panels in the corridor outside the property. The resident being unhappy with the inevitable draughts and cooler temperature was understandable. However, the landlord’s decision to take this action was reasonable and informed by expert opinion. It was in line with the works that had been explained to residents.
9. The stage 1 response clearly explained the situation and the landlord’s position. Its decision not to pay for the resident’s energy bills was reasonable. It was based on its assessment that her front door should sufficiently insulate from any lower temperature in the corridor. The £100 offered at this stage for disturbance and inconvenience was fair.
10. Outside the property is a storage cupboard for personal use. The fire safety works required the door of this cupboard to be removed. In her escalation request the resident said she was unhappy with the length of time she was without use of it. She said the lack of this door also caused draughts into the property. She said it caused her inconvenience keeping her belongings elsewhere, which were usually stored in the cupboard.
11. In response to the resident’s complaint about draughts, the landlord boarded up the cupboard. It was positive it took action to minimise the impact. The landlord wrote to the resident to say the cupboard door would be replaced in approximately 8 weeks. A few days later the site manager told her this could be delayed by 3 to 4 months. This was due to the extractor fan needing to be moved. Although outside of the landlord’s control, it acknowledged it should have informed the resident about this in writing. At stage 2 it offered £100 compensation for this communication lapse and £150 for the delay in the works. This, in addition to the £100 offered at stage 1, was reasonable and proportionate to the level of failure and impact. It was in line with our remedies guidance for the inconvenience and disappointment felt by the resident.
12. Due to the scale and necessity of the works, much of this issue was outside of the landlord’s control. However it recognised the effect on the resident and sought fair resolution. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of communal works. It is recommended the landlord pay the sum of £350 compensation as offered. The determination is dependent on this being paid as there were some elements of failure due to the delay and communication.

13. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint the day after it was received, within its 2 working day target. It gave its stage 1 response 13 working days later, which was slightly over its 10-day target. It did write to the resident to explain it needed an extension, which was in line with its complaints policy. The landlord said it wanted to do some inspections to inform its decision. This was reasonable and appropriate to make the response more accurate and meaningful. The stage 1 response was detailed and explained the necessity of the works.
14. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 6 days after it was made. This was slightly over its 2-day target. It appropriately apologised for this in the acknowledgement letter.
15. The landlord gave its stage 2 response 39 working days after escalation. This was more than its 20-day timescale. The landlord complied with its policy by telling the resident it had extended the deadline to allow for liaison between staff. This was reasonable. The stage 2 response was thorough and covered the resident’s concerns.
16. The £50 compensation offered for delays in complaint handling was fair and reasonable. It was proportionate to the minimal impact caused by a short delay in acknowledgement and responses. The extension to responses was compliant with policy and managed the resident’s expectations. At both stages the responses were given before the extended deadline. The sum offered was in line with our remedies guidance for a minor failure and is deemed reasonable redress. A further recommendation is made for the £50 to be paid.