Portsmouth Rotary Housing Association Limited (201906869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906869

Portsmouth Rotary Housing Association Limited

21 June 2021

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 refers to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The landlord’s decision to fund days out for its tenants.
2. Fire alarm testing at the property.
3. Staff conduct and professionalism.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s decision to fund days out for its tenants.

Paragraph 39(r) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to fund days out for its tenants, she feels that this is inappropriate as the money should be spent on improvements to communal areas within the landlord’s properties. The landlord has explained that the money spent on occasional trips for its residents does not defer improvement works to the properties, as these sorts of works are part of “cyclical repairs” that should take place regardless every seven to ten years. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to order the landlord to change the way it uses its funds. It would be the landlord’s decision to determine how its budget is managed provided it meets its legal obligations. If the resident has specific repair concerns related to her property or the communal areas of the building, she may wish to raise these to the landlord separately.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block comprised of similar properties. The landlord also maintains an adjacent building that houses several flats and shared laundry facilities. The accommodation is offered exclusively to residents over the age of 55.
The resident had also raised concerns about car parking at the property and the location and security of various key safes on the site within this complaint. On a call to this Service on 9 April 2021, she said that these issues had been resolved and it was decided that these issues would not be investigated. This report will therefore not include any communication regarding these issues.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 9 October 2019 and explained her dissatisfaction regarding the fire alarm testing within her building. She felt that these should be tested at a specific time. She added that it was extremely intrusive to have the alarm tested once per week at different times. She asked the landlord to arrange for a meeting with its board of trustees to discuss this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 October 2019 and repeated her request for a meeting.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on the same day and confirmed that it would now treat her concerns as a formal complaint under its complaints process. It detailed its complaints process and confirmed that it would provide a full response by 18 October 2020.
The resident provided a list of the issues she experienced at the property. She included her concerns about the fire alarm testing at the property and said that testing the fire alarm every week was ‘ridiculous’. She expressed concern that the fire alarm was not tested at the same time each week which was disruptive to the residents. She also added her concerns about the landlord’s administration and said that she felt that members of staff were not able to complete a simple task such as providing notification of visits and that resident’s had been lied to.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 October 2019 and stated the following:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm testing and confirmed that it would now test the fire alarms every Wednesday between 2 pm and 3:30 pm. It explained that sometimes this may be at other times of the day due to staffing issues or conflicting appointments, but that it would endeavour to notify tenants in advance via text message.
2. It said that it wanted to visit the resident on 21 October 2019 to discuss her feedback and any other concerns she had. It asked the resident to confirm her availability.
The landlord’s records show that a meeting took place on 24 October 2019. Multiple issues were discussed including the resident’s relationships with her neighbours, the key safes at the property and the changing of heating controls in the adjacent block of flats. The landlord also discussed the fire alarm procedure and confirmed that by law, it needed to test these once a week. It said that it would endeavour to test these on Wednesdays between 2 pm and 3:30 pm and if this was not possible because of staff absence, it would let the tenants know. The landlord offered to knock on the resident’s door at the time of the alarm testing but the resident did not provide any further comment on this. The landlord sent the resident a summary of the conversation on the same day.
On 27 October 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide all communication she had sent under the Freedom of Information Act. She also asked for her complaint to be escalated.
On 5 November 2019, the landlord provided the resident with printouts of all communication that had been sent between 27 July 2019 and 5 November 2019. It acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint and said that it would provide a stage two response. It sent a further letter on 12 November 2019 asking the resident for her availability so that a meeting to discuss her complaint could be arranged.
A meeting took place on 15 November 2019, several issues were discussed, including the resident days out, the resident’s relationships with her neighbours, the location of the key safes and the management of the car park. The landlord offered the resident support in the form of mediation or outreach service for her concerns about communication with the landlord, but this offer was declined.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 November 2019. This complaint response focused largely on the resident’s concerns about the use of the car park and the location of key safes. The landlord confirmed that another meeting would take place in December 2019 to discuss her concerns further and that the complaint remained open.
On 23 November 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked it to address her concerns about the fire alarm testing again. She said that testing the fire alarm every week would not change the outcome if there was a fire, it was intrusive to tenants who were unwell or working nights and it enforced the idea that the landlord had no faith in its own Health and Safety system. She sent a further email to the landlord on 2 December 2019 and noted that if it kept testing the fire alarms every week, the residents would not respond if there was a real fire because they would think it was another test.
On 14 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and said that she was ready to take her complaint to the next level, which would be to the landlord’s trustees. The landlord responded and asked to meet with the resident on 19 December 2019 to discuss her outstanding concerns. It also confirmed that a panel meeting could be arranged for January 2020. The resident said that she was not available and that this would need to be arranged after Christmas.
On 29 December 2019 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to provide all correspondence she had sent since the last meeting under the Freedom of Information Act and asked for it to arrange a meeting with the trustees so that she could complete the complaints process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2020 and asked it to provide written confirmation and proof which stated that the landlord needed to test the fire alarm every week. The landlord provided links to The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and British Standard BS 5839 on 7 January 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage three escalation request on 7 January 2020 and explained that her complaint would now be referred to its complaints panel.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 19 February 2020 and was unhappy with the fire alarm being tested. She said that this was on for too long and found it disruptive. She added that she had spoken to a fire officer who said that the alarms only needed to be tested every six months and that she would be calling to complain every time the fire alarm was tested moving forward.
On 2 March 2020. The landlord issued its stage three response and explained the following:
1. It confirmed that a panel meeting had taken place on 27 February 2020 where the arranged days out for tenants and the fire alarm testing frequency were discussed.
2. It confirmed that the decision to put on events for resident’s came directly from requests made by residents to its staff. it said that this was also in line with the Regulator of Housing Associations guidance which recommended engagement with tenants. It confirmed that in its view the cost implication was not great considering the pleasure the residents had experienced. It noted that the resident accepted this explanation at the time of the meeting.
3. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm testing, the landlord explained that it had sent her a link to the Government’s legislation regarding fire safety and that she now understood the landlord’s obligation to keep its residents safe. It acknowledged that regular fire testing could be annoying, but confirmed that, by law, it must carry out these tests. It noted that the resident was writing to relevant authorities to see if a change in the law could be discussed.
4. It noted that the resident mentioned her views on the landlord’s staff at the meeting and wanted the landlord’s CEO to listen more closely to complaints. She suggested that a member of the landlord’s staff had more training in their role as an administrator and confirmed that she had been unhappy with the previous management.

Assessment and findings

The resident has referenced how the communication with the landlord has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The frequency of fire alarm testing.

As a social housing provider, the landlord would be obliged to meet all statutory requirements that provide for the health and safety of the occupants of its properties. The landlord’s fire alarm testing framework states that the landlord would be required to maintain fire, smoke and heat detection systems. It confirms that this should be tested once per week in line with its policy. In addition to relevant legislation, in accordance with best practice, the landlord monitors all Fire Safety Systems in accordance with BS 5839. This British Standard makes the following recommendations in respect of weekly testing:
1. The operation of a manual call point should be tested during normal working hours.
2. This test to be carried out at approximately the same time each week.
3. Additional tests to be made at least once a month for any employees not usually present during the normal weekly test.
4. In systems with multiple manual call points, a different one to be tested each week, so that all are eventually included in the schedule of testing over a period of time.
5. The routine test time should not normally exceed one minute, so that the occupants of the premises can learn to distinguish between this weekly alarm and an actual fire alarm.
The resident has expressed concern that the fire alarms did not need to be tested once per week and that by doing so, the landlord may be causing its tenants to become desensitised to the testing. It is noted that the resident has received communication from the Home Office which states that there is no specific duty to test fire alarms in the common parts of a residential building weekly.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to test the fire alarm at the resident’s property once per week. There may be no statutory duty to test the fire alarm weekly but it is up to the landlord to decide how it manages its building and it can decide to test the alarm weekly if it wants to, this would not be unreasonable. The landlord has also not acted unreasonably by acting in line with the British standard guidance for fire alarm testing.
The landlord has taken steps to explain its framework to the resident and has said that it would endeavour to test the alarm at the same time each week unless staff were absent. If this were the case, it would attempt to let the resident know. It also offered to knock on the resident’s door at the time of the fire alarm test, however, it is unclear whether the resident had accepted this offer.
The resident has also raised concern that the fire alarm tests went on for too long and that the tenants were not always notified of when this was due to take place. In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord ensures that the test time does not exceed one minute, in line with British Standard guidance. The landlord should also attempt to notify tenants each time a test is due to take place to prevent any undue disruption.

The resident’s concerns related to staff conduct and professionalism.

In her correspondence to this Service, the resident has said that she feels some of the landlord’s staff members are unprofessional and incompetent. She feels she is not listened to when she attempts to speak to staff about her concerns and that the landlord is dismissive of her. She has also said that she has lost trust in the landlord. The resident has not provided any specific reasons as to why this is the case. In its stage three response, the landlord noted that the resident felt that a member of staff should receive further training, although no specific reason as to why she felt this was needed has been provided.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The resident has raised some general points about the conduct of the landlord’s staff, but our investigation is limited to specific incidents which can be verified by evidence.
The evidence provided shows that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to meet with the resident on multiple occasions so that her concerns could be discussed in person. The resident has therefore been given the opportunity to raise any issues she had. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had strong feelings about the competence of certain contractors and members of its staff and offered the service of a mediator or outreach support to assist her with any communication.
The resident was within her rights to decline the landlord’s offer of a mediator service as this is not compulsory, although it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this following the resident’s concerns about communication and professionalism, as it can be effective in ensuring that communication remains professional on both sides. The resident may wish to reconsider this option if she remains concerned about the communication between herself and the landlord.
The landlord appears to have addressed each of the resident’s concerns and a separate complaint has now been raised with this Service about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from her neighbours. Contact will be made separately about the complaint in due course. There has been no evidence provided that demonstrates any service failure by the landlord which would directly be attributed to a single member of staff or would require further staff training.
The landlord has acted reasonably by attempting to gain clarification of any specific issues the resident has experienced with its staff and like the Ombudsman, the landlord could not investigate or respond further without more specific information. If the resident has further concerns about a member of staff’s actions, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord on this matter. It would help the investigation if she can provide specific reasons why she believes them to be incompetent and offers her ideal resolution to these concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the frequency of fire alarm testing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct and professionalism.

Reasons

The landlord is obliged to ensure that the fire alarm systems serving the resident’s building are working correctly. Whilst there may be no statutory duty to test the alarms every week, the landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why this is done.
The resident has not provided any specific reasons why she feels that certain members of staff are incompetent and need further training. The landlord has acted reasonably by arranging for several meetings to take place so that the resident could raise her concerns directly and has offered the service of a mediator or outreach team to support her with any communication with the landlord as she has lost confidence in its service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord ensures that the fire alarm test time does not exceed one minute, in line with British Standard guidance.
The landlord should also attempt to notify tenants each time a test is due to take place to prevent any undue disruption.