Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202124434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124434

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

5 September 2023 (Updated following review on 4 June 2024)

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:
1. The resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns within the building.
2. The resident’s reports concerning repairs to the fire doors.
3. The resident’s reports concerning the lack of consultation under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the standard of Automatic Opening Vent (AOV) works from 2019.
4. The resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of the cleaning services within the communal areas.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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 paragraph 42(a) and 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports concerning repairs to the fire doors.
2. The resident’s reports concerning the lack of consultation under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the standard of AOV works from 2019.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. The resident reported issues with the fire doors to her MP on 24 January 2022 and to this Service in her email of 8 March 2022, however, this was not mentioned in the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint concerning this issue.
42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. The AOV installation was undertaken by the landlord in 2019 and the formal complaint concerning this was not made until 3 October 2021. The resident may wish to consider raising the issue of a lack of consultation with the First Tier Tribunal. The First Tier Tribunal may consider the absence of the consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and whether the landlord applied for the necessary dispensation to allow it to proceed with the AOV works without this consultation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a third floor two bedroom flat contained within a purpose built block. The resident’s lease commenced on 10 March 2008. The lease is a long-term lease over 125 years from the commencement date. The resident pays a variable service charge.
The landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease is to:
1. “Maintain, repair, redecorate and renew or procure the maintenance, repair, redecoration and renewal of: The roof, foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts”, “The pipes, sewers, drains, wires, cisterns and tanks and other gas, electrical, drainage, ventilation and water apparatus and machinery in, under and upon the building”, the common parts and the parking spaces”.
The resident is required under the terms of the lease to:
1. Pay the service charges by “equal monthly payments in advance”.
2. To “permit the landlord and its surveyor or agent at all reasonable times on notice (except in the case of emergency”) to enter the premises to view the condition thereof and to make good all defects and wants of repairs”.
3. To “keep the interior of the premises and the glass in the windows and doors (if any) and the moveable parts of the windows of the premises and the interior faces (including plaster and other internal covering or lining and any floor boards, tiling and screeding) of the walls, ceilings and floors of the premises and all radiators and water and sanitary apparatus and gas and electrical apparatus of the premises and all pipes, drains, and wires which are in the premises and are enjoyed or used only for the premises and not for other premises in the building, and the fixtures and appurtenances of and belonging to the premises and any patio or deck area belonging to the premises, clean and in good and substantial repair and condition (damaged by fire and other risks insured under clause 5(2) excepted unless such insurance shall be vitiated by any act or default by the leaseholder”.
4. To decorate the premises “excluding the upvc windows and doors and any balcony”.
5. To “repair and make good any damage to the common parts caused by the leaseholder or the leaseholder’s family servants or licensees or by any other person under the control of the leaseholder in such manner as the landlord shall direct and to its reasonable satisfaction”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within two working days of receipt. It will respond at stage one within ten working days, though an “alternative timescale” may be agreed on a “case-by-case basis” not exceeding 20 working days. The timescale for stage two (internal review) is 20 working days. The landlord may agree an extension at stage two “but this will not exceed 30 working days in total”. The landlord updated its complaints policy in June 2022, however, this postdated the resident’s formal complaints and as such the landlord’s complaints policy it operated at the time has been referenced.
The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy sets out its approach to compensation and redress where a customer has “experienced financial loss or acute inconvenience due to service failure, poor performance or unavoidable disruption”. It details:
1. A discretionary payment may be made of up to £250 for “distress and inconvenience, following a service failure”.
2. “For variable service charges, service failures will be credited and carried forward in the accounts or reimbursed to the residents after reconciliation of the accounts”.
3. It will consider a “discretionary goodwill gesture” up to a value of £50 to recognise “distress or inconvenience”.
4. It will consider compensation for missed appointments where there has been a failure “to meet our published timescales for repairs”, or where the landlord has “notified you of further work required”.
5. It will “recharge the customer £25” for instances “where a customer fails to keep an appointment” with the landlord or its contractors, “or to cancel or postpone with less than 24 hours’ notice barring exceptional circumstances”.
6. It “may pay compensation for the loss of rooms and facilities”. This is calculated as a proportion of the rent.
7. Exclusions apply to the policy where a resident has “been responsible for the loss or delay of a service or have not reported the issues” to the landlord. Where there is “ongoing legal action” this is also excluded. Liability in relation to damage which would mean a “liability claim can be made where negligence will need to be evidenced”.
The landlord’s fire safety management framework August 2020 details the landlord’s approach and standards that it “will apply in relation to fire safety in the residential stock it manages”. This sets out the primary legislation applying to fire safety under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It will take account of “guidance issued by central government”. It details:
1. The responsibilities for “fire safety including the organisation’s responsible person”. The landlord’s “health and safety team undertake an advisory/oversight role of fire safety management across the organisation”.
2. The landlord has “robust contract management arrangements in place”. A review is undertaken on “a sample of assessments carried out and ongoing monitoring by the relevant compliance officer”.
3. Its approach to fire safety risk assessments using the methodology set out in PAS 79. PAS 79 is a recognised professional standard and methodology for undertaking and recording fire risk assessments.
4. Where it is deemed “appropriate”, the landlord will “procure specialist surveys to ascertain what actions to take to eliminate or reduce risks”.
5. The landlord will “ensure escape routes (corridors and staircases) are maintained in good condition”. It will undertake “reasonable measures” to remove “tripping or slipping hazards”. “No items may be stored in internal (enclosed) corridors or stairwells”.
6. It is “obliged to reasonably ensure” that the exterior areas (“e.g. communal balconies and open stairways on the outside of blocks of flats” are “unobstructed for residents, the emergency services and others”.
7. It sets out a list of possibly flammable items that its residents must not store “within the communal parts of their building”.
8. “Fire alarm/AOVs and fireman’s drop key boxes will be maintained in good condition at all times”.
The Fire Safety Act 2021 updates the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Sections 1 and 3 of the Act came into force on 16 May 2022 which postdates the resident’s complaint to the landlord. This includes a “building’s structure and external walls and any common parts” and “all doors between the domestic premises and common parts”. However, the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018 was in force at the time of the resident’s complaint updating the Building Regulations 2010 defining external walls and internal finishes.
The landlord’s cyclical planned works policy details:
1. The three work streams covering “general needs operating with a “six yearly cycle, however this may vary according to resources”, supported housing (including sheltered housing) “typically five yearly cycle; and “leasehold and mixed tenure (including shared ownership) – cycle informed by lease”.
2. For leaseholders and shared owners it will “comply with leasehold Section 20 notice provisions”. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 refers to consultation requirements for qualifying works over a certain threshold or qualifying long term agreements.
3. The “cost of works to leasehold and shared ownership properties will be recovered through the service charge”. It states that for most of its schemes it collects “money in advance through the service charge to help spread the cost of works over the cycle”. If there are “insufficient funds” it will then invoice for “the remaining cost of works”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs sets out response timescales and it will: attend and “make safe within four hours” an emergency repair and will attend to “all emergency repairs within 24 hours”, attend “non-emergency repairs by appointment, at a time agreed with the customer and complete within 20 working days, carry out “post-inspections” on “a minimum of 5% of all works completed”.
The landlord’s estate management policy details:
1. Its responsibility “for ensuring that cleaning and grounds maintenance are undertaken regularly to common parts in accordance with agreed levels for that scheme, estate or block”.
2. It holds contracts with “several different cleaning and grounds contractors across our portfolio”. It will “monitor the contracts, ensuring that individual contract specifications include as a minimum; cleaning of all common parts, hard surface maintenance, grass cutting, weeding and leaf clearance, and removal of letter”.
3. “Where services are contracted” it will “carry out inspections on a regular basis to ensure cleaning and grounds maintenance standards”.
4. It “will recover our reasonable costs for estate management through the service charge”.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the weekly cleaning service is provided in house. The cleaning to be carried out includes; dust clean, light fixtures and fittings, clean bin rooms, clean cycle room, spot clean walls, clear any spillages, clean handrails, dust base of handrails, clean and sanitise outside intercom panel, sweep and mop vinyl floor coverings, where application – lift cleaning”. The resident provided a photograph of the weekly cleaning sign in sheet which details, the cleaners present on each occasion, when cleaners have signed in and out over a period of time from 12 November 2021 to 1 June 2022. This covers a small period prior to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Part of the complaint the resident submitted with regard to the cleaning concerned the inaccuracy of the timings recorded. The landlord advised this Service on 12 July 2023 that it has since launched ‘photobook’ in March 2023 to evidence the cleaning service provided to improve quality assurance, management and oversight of its cleaning and grounds maintenance services. Photobook allows the capture of photographic information to evidence the completion of all cleaning and grounds maintenance which is time and date stamped. The signing in and out sheets are photographed. It has advised that service standards and schedules have been developed and were due to be published in June.
Within this report reference is made to automatic opening vents or (AOVs). The purpose of an AOV is to assist evacuation in the event of a fire to help clear lobbies, stairwells and corridors through smart smoke control, allowing a safe route to the nearest means of escape. The landlord advised this Service in an email of 11 August 2022 that it undertakes quarterly inspections of the AOV system and provided a sample of these inspections.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme referred to above, this investigation focusses on the time period six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 26 July 2021. The resident submitted a previous formal complaint in 2020 concerning a number of different issues that the landlord responded to in a final stage two response on 26 March 2021. One of the issues referred to was the service charges relating to communal cleaning and this is referenced for context as the response was made within the six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 26 July 2021, that was brought to this Service. The resident confirmed to this Service that her complaints should be dealt with as sole complaints rather than a group complaint, as some correspondence from the resident was copied to other residents within the block. In addition one of the landlord’s responses was sent to the residents’ association, marked for the attention of the resident. This is detailed in the summary of events for context. The resident brought two separate complaints to her landlord that she referred to this Service. One complaint concerned the cleaning services and the other concerned the landlord’s fire safety handling, particularly in relation to the AOV system. This Service has therefore considered both complaints within the summary of events and in the assessment and findings. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Summary of events

In response to the resident’s earlier complaint from 2020 where a range of issues were brought to the attention of the landlord, the landlord sent a final stage two response on 26 March 2021. In this it referred to an update regarding “communal cleaning” service charge queries. It was in the process of “concluding our review of the queries raised in respect of the 19/20 service charge final accounts and the more recently issued 21/22 service charge estimates”. It would provide a detailed response “by Easter”. It made a commitment to update residents on a “routine basis every Thursday”. It proposed a shared “contact agreement” be put in place with the residents’ association to “ensure that we have a clear communication channel between us and agreed timeframes for response”. It would be an “opportunity to rebuild the trust and relationship” with residents.
Further correspondence was sent between the resident and the landlord between 28 March 2021 and 12 April 2021 concerning the earlier complaint and the landlord sent an update letter to the residents’ association marked for the attention of the resident on 16 April 2021. In this it advised: the balance of the sinking and cyclical funds available on 31 March 2021, a breakdown of the resident’s service charge queries and it advised that it had adjusted the cleaning costs to “reflect the charge of one cleaner from January 2020”. It had uploaded its cleaning and grounds maintenance programme to a sharepoint site for the resident to access. The resident confirmed access to this. It advised that it would be happy to discuss “an alternative programme to see how we can improve this service for you”. It provided a schedule of visits that had been made over the previous 12 months. It offered a face to face meeting on site to “talk through your complaint”.
The resident sent a Stage one complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2021 concerning the cleaning service. In this she stated:
1. With regard to the cleaning service on 16 July 2021 “some residents observed that only one regular cleaner” had attended on the day in question. The timings recorded were “between 9.00 am and about 11.45 am”.
2. She advised that it had been agreed with the landlord “that a cleaner would work three hours per week”. However, the landlord “insisted on two cleaners working one and a half hours each”. The “full three hours worked by one cleaner were not completed”.
3. She advised that “two cleaners’ names are written” and asked the landlord to “explain why the inaccurate information is written on the signing in sheet”.
4. A request for the landlord to “please reconsider only one cleaner working three full hours on a weekly basis to ensure better cleaning standards”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint by email on 26 July 2021. It advised that it would investigate and provide a response by “9 August 2021”.
The landlord sent its Stage one response on 10 August 2021. In this it detailed:
1. It referenced the resident’s referral to “some residents” and wished to clarify who the resident was representing. It had sent the response directly to the resident.
2. It acknowledged that it had “failed in delivering great service”. It referred to the two dates the resident mentioned in her complaint.
3. It advised that its records showed that “two cleaners have always worked” at the block, excluding the year before due to the “result of the pandemic. At this time the cleaner worked alone. “Any missed services are reflected in your 2020/21 service charge final accounts – which will be issued in September”.
4. On 16 July 2021, it stated that “the cleaner working alone had “signed the sheet on behalf of another cleaner in error”. It apologised for the mistake “and any possible stress or inconvenience this may have caused you”.
5. On 23 July 2021, it advised that two cleaners had attended. One of the cleaners had advised that the resident had “approached multiple times during his shift and questioned the work he was carrying out”. The landlord advised that in response to this the cleaner had “correctly informed you that if you wished to lodge a formal complaint, you had the right to do so”. It did not feel that the resident’s representation was a “balanced or a reasonable summary of events”. It advised that its cleaners had the “right to work unimpeded and to deliver the required service”.
6. It proposed to “revisit the timings and costs” and would “share this with all residents with a view to obtaining a consensus and agreement on how the service will be delivered in future”.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint concerning cleaning to Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 August 2021. Her escalation request detailed why she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response:
1. She stated that “as myself and other residents are paying for the cleaning service provided through the service charges, I am sure you would agree that we have a right to get value for money and insist that the cleaners are doing their job properly within the assigned timings”.
2. She had “already challenged the communal cleaning service during the service charge queries for the year 2019/2020”. This had been rejected by the landlord. She referred to a petition of 19 April 2021 “outlining ten points regarding the proposed service charges for the year 2021/2022 which we had never been consulted upon”. One of the queries concerned the communal cleaning service. The residents who had signed the petition requested “only one cleaner cleaning”. This would be for “three hours per week”. However, the landlord “insisted that since 30 April 2021 two cleaners would be providing the cleaning service working one and a half hours each”.
3. She advised that “when two cleaners began working” that “cleaning standards started to fall”.
4. She accepted the landlord’s apology with regard to the “accurate timings”.
5. She referred to the cleaners’ performance on 30 July 2021, 6 August 2021, 13 August 2021 and 20 August 2021. She requested a “list of jobs the cleaners were requested to carry out”. She advised that she had requested the “weekly cleaning specification and clear indication which jobs each cleaner is responsible for”. She stated that this had not been provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an AOV inspection on 27 August 2021 and reported that the system was “tested and working fine”.
The resident instructed and paid for a fire and safety contractor who carried out an inspection of the block on 16 September 2021. The report detailed that there “is an array of poorly/incorrectly fitted actuators”. The “top floor smoke shaft has been poorly cabled and this needs to be addressed”. It stated that “both smoke shafts contain debris, metal containment and rubbish left over from the installation”. It recommended that a fire risk assessment be completed “alongside the AOV maintenance contract to allow safe access to shafts to check and document fire stopping requirements”. It recommended an “urgent passive fire stopping survey is completed due to there being no fire stopping within the AOV shafts and it was also identified in other locations throughout the building (holes and damage to walls/ceilings and fire compartments”. It identified that there “is no fire alarm system within the building (existing smoke detectors are only linked to the AOV system”. It advised that the “escape route signs do not conform to BS ENISO 7010 to satisfy the fire safety legislation”.
The landlord sent its Stage two response in respect of the cleaning service on 20 September 2021. In this it detailed:
1. It appreciated that the “cleaning service affects all our residents” and it stated that “you should receive a service that is value for money and meets the needs of both the property and that of the residents”.
2. It stressed that “staff and contractors have the right to work unimpeded and to deliver the required service without unnecessary intervention”.
3. It was upholding the original response sent. However it would conduct “a full review of the cleaning service to our leasehold residents within the next six weeks”. It would then share the outcomes and “no permanent changes will be made until the review is completed and communicated”.
4. It stated that as part of the “internal review process, we provide a provisional response; giving you five working days to review the outcomes and email us should you want to dispute the findings and outcomes and provide us with additional evidence”. The landlord would then “consider your views and make adjustment where these are supported”.
5. It apologised for “any inconveniences caused”. It advised that “lessons will be learnt from this situation to prevent future failings”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 September 2021 in response to its internal review to request a further review of her complaint concerning cleaning. She advised:
1. Her disappointment that the landlord had upheld its original response. She was still “dissatisfied with the overall service provided”. She wished to dispute a number of the landlord’s findings.
2. On two occasions on 27 August and 24 September 2021, she advised that “only one cleaner” had attended and worked “only one and half hours instead of three” as agreed by the landlord. She requested a refund for the three hours not worked.
3. She advised that contractors “often leave mess after themselves” and provided photographs showing “messy carpet”. The photographs provided to this Service show footprint markings on the carpet.
4. She advised that “a new cleaning programme” had been introduced by the landlord in August”. Also that one cleaner had been “working alone between two and a half hours to three hours from January 2020 until 30 April 2021”. She advised that during this time “the building was much cleaner than as compared to the current cleaning by two cleaners working one and a half hours each week”. She advised that the landlord had not addressed her comment that “on 30 July 2021 when the building was cleaned reasonably well. Why was it possible to clean the building reasonably well on that day and during the period” when the cleaner was working alone.
5. She advised that residents would be “reviewing the current cleaning service and providing their own cleaning programme” to the landlord.
6. She provided a proposal for the landlord to consider detailing suggested changes to the cleaning service and the type of work to be undertaken for the landlord to review.
The resident sent a Stage one complaint on 3 October 2021 concerning the “current replacement of the AOV system”. She wished to raise a formal disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and under the landlord’s whistleblowing policy. In this she detailed:
1. She advised that the “AOV system was replaced in April 2019 without prior consultation with the residents”. She referred to a communication from the landlord to residents which had stated:
  1. “We had to replace the Automatic Opening Vent (AOV) system which failed in March 2019. This could not be repaired and had to be replaced; this work was completed in April 2019”. “Due to the urgency of replacing the AOV we did not carry out a Section 20 process at the time and a decision was made that we will not pass the full cost to leaseholders and the costs will be capped at £250 per leaseholder”. It had advised that it would cover the “rest of the cost”.
2. That further details had been requested regarding “the breakdown of costs and materials for the replacement of the AOV system”. However, the landlord had not provided this.
3. It was accepted that “emergency repairs will be required from time to time”, however the resident did not accept “that there would be such a catastrophic failure of all the equipment on one occasion that would warrant the complete replacement”. It would have been “normal practice for the maintainer of the AOV system on their routine maintenance visits” to report the “requirement for a whole system replacement due to age or other issues”. Concern was raised at the lack of a “competitive tender for works of significant value”.
4. An “independent company was requested to assess the AOV system due to the high level of concern of the works carried out”. It was felt these works were “of very poor quality and resulted in the works to be redone and leaseholders being charged considerable amounts of money”.
5. The report “verified these concerns and highlighted other issues that significantly impact on the fire safety” of the building.
6. The report of 16 September 2021 undertaken by the “independent fire risk assessor” highlighted issues that “need to be rectified as a matter of urgency, as they are causing a serious risk to the residents”. The resident provided a summary of the recommendations arising from the report and advised that she would send the report to the landlord “shortly”.
7. The resident requested the landlord to “implement the advice on the rectifications provided by the independent AOV consultant” as “a matter of urgency” and to “carry out a new fire risk assessment, which is due in October 2021”.
8. She requested “historical information and maintenance reports for the AOV system covering the three years prior to the replacement project”.
9. An explanation of why a “partially open smoke vent door, was not addressed and repaired as a matter of urgency and left for 11 months in the same state”.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s fire safety complaint on 4 October 2021. It advised that “the matter will be treated as an official complaint under our complaints policy”. It provided a reference number for the complaint. It would “investigate the matter and aim to respond by 15 October 2021”.
The landlord further acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 7 October 2021 and advised that as “your concerns relate to dangers around health and safety” it would investigate this in line with the “Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and our whistleblowing policy”. It would provide a response “by 29 October 2021”.
The resident emailed the landlord in response on 10 October 2021 to advise that she felt the timeframe was “too long” advising that “the complaint was raised on 3 October 2021”. She stated that it was her understanding that “the complaint will be investigated in line with the complaint policy and with the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and your whistleblowing policy”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021 referring to her request for an “internal review of the complaint regarding cleaning services” that she had sent on 26 September 2021. She referred to the landlord’s response on 20 September 2021 in which the landlord advised “as part of our internal review process, we provide a provisional response; giving you five working days to review the outcomes and email us should you want to dispute the findings and outcomes and provide us additional evidence”. As she had provided this dispute with further evidence she was chasing up a response.
The landlord’s director emailed the resident on 15 October 2021 with the landlord’s final Stage two response in connection with the resident’s cleaning complaint. This detailed:
1. An apology “for the delay in responding to you, this was due to a lack of communication and confusion with the complaint team on my part”.
2. It was acknowledged that the landlord needed to “improve aspects of the cleaning service we provide”.
3. It would conduct a “review of the cleaning”. This would look at “value for money for residents in the service we provide you, including the number of cleaners and how many visits”. It would also “address the behaviours and attitudes” of its team towards residents. It would share the result of the review.
4. It noted that the resident was “getting an independent cleaning company to survey and report”. It requested a copy so that it could “review any recommendations to include in our new process”.
5. It escalated the “mess that was left by a third party contractor”. It had contacted all its contractors to “ensure the clear up at the end of the day and to include communal areas outside the flats and the building’s car park and surrounding areas they may work in”.
6. It would be refunding “the cleaning aspect of the service charge for the last three months and this will be applied as a credit on the resident’s service charge account”.
The landlord instructed its contractor to undertake a fire risk assessment which was carried out on 16 October 2021 and the report was issued to the landlord on 26 October 2021. The summary indicated that “taking into account the nature of the property and occupants, as well as fire protection and procedural arrangements observed at the time of this fire risk assessment, it is considered that the consequences for life safety in the event of a fire would be moderate harm”. It detailed:
1. That if “all remedial works” were undertaken the risk would be reduced to “tolerable”. It recommended a further assessment be undertaken on 26 October 2022.
2. It recommended that “management carry out remedial recommendations made in the report completed by the independent consultant”. The target date given was 26 January 2022.
3. It advised the landlord “take appropriate steps to confirm/ensure that the external wall timber close-boarded timber cladding and the composite rendered insulation system/construction meets Building Regulations requirements with regards to limited combustibility and surface fire spread properties and that any/all identified defects are resolved as a priority”.
4. It detailed a “partially open smoke shaft door on the first floor”. It stated that “although no-fault/activation indication was observed on the manual actuation device the door to the smoke shaft on the first floor appears to have been tampered with or is not closing fully into its frame”.
5. It advised that “management should arrange for the defects noted to the automatic smoke ventilation system to be rectified by the service engineer and the system to be confirmed as fully operational”.
6. It identified the following outstanding actions from its previous assessment which had been undertaken the year before in October:
  1. “Management should arrange for the defects noted to the automatic smoke ventilation system to be rectified by the service engineer and the system to be confirmed as fully operational”. Target date: 7 November 2020. Status at the time of the assessment “assigned”.
  2. “All flat entrance doors should be checked to confirm that self-closers are fitted and remain effective. An ongoing rolling programme of checks should be confirmed to be in place”. Target date: 7 January 2021. Status at the time of the assessment “assigned”.
  3. “Management should undertake an intrusive inspection of the smoke shafts within the accommodation corridors to confirm/ensure that compartmentation within is adequate”. Target date: 7 January 2021. Status at the time of the assessment “assigned”.
  4. “Management should confirm/ensure that routine in-house fire safety checks are carried out on a regular basis (daily or weekly depending on building usage) and records kept on-site or in a central database”. Target date 7 January 2021. Status at the time of the assessment “approved”.
  5. “Management should confirm/ensure that records of routine fire safety checks are kept in the fire safety log book on-site or in a central database”. Target date 7 January 2021. Status at the time of the assessment “approved”.
  6. “Management should ensure that there is a documented familiarisation of fire safety arrangements within the building to ensure the Fire and Rescue Services are satisfied with the provision of water supplies to/within all areas of the building. Any improvement measures/ advisory conditions issued from the Fire and Rescue Services should be acted on within the timescales recommended”. Target date 7 January 2021. Status at the time of the assessment “assigned”.
The landlord sent its response under the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and whistleblowing policy on 21 October in respect of the resident’s complaint concerning the AOV system and fire safety. In this it detailed:
1. As “outlined in my email to you of 7 October 2021”, the landlord had “investigated the concerns you raised as a formal disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and in line with our whistleblowing policy”.
2. It referred to the concerns that were raised regarding the “full replacement of the AOV system in April 2019”. It had “carried out as an emergency replacement with the intention of maintaining the safety of the residents”. It advised that it was “not ideal that a Section 20 consultation was not undertaken”.
3. It had “reviewed all the points raised within the independent review” and did “find that the maintenance of the system has fallen short of the levels” it would expect. It advised that its contractor would be visiting on 27 November 2021 “to ensure that the system is fully functioning and to remediate all points of concern”. It had shared the independent report “to ensure that the points raised are rectified as a matter of urgency”.
4. It advised that a new “fire risk assessment was carried out by our external consultant Savills on 14 October 2021”. It was awaiting the final report. It would provide this once it had been received.
5. It was “starting the process of procuring the fire servicing contractor”. This was due to be “in place by 1 April 2022”.
6. It enclosed “servicing records for the AOV system from March 2019” in respect of the quarterly servicing.
7. It “did not accept” that the action to address the “partially open smoke vent door” was not addressed. It advised that “at no point through our inspections has this been flagged to us”. It suggested that the door “may have been partially open on the day of inspection but was closed during our contractors inspection”. It urged “any resident who notices an open vent door to inform us so we can ensure someone visits site to rectify”.
8. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint in respect of the servicing of the AOV which “may have fallen short of the standards required”. It had instructed its contractor to “make good the points raised in the independent report”. It urged any residents to raise any “concerns around health and safety” “as soon as possible as we are committed to working with you to resolve these things quickly and to a compliant standard”. It would also help “manage our contractors robustly should there be problems with their performance”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2021 attaching her cleaning proposal for the landlord to consider. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 October 2021 to advise that it was reviewing the resident’s cleaning proposal and would respond the following week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 November 2021 to chase up a response to her cleaning proposal. She advised that in the landlord’s email of 28 October 2021 it had advised “I will review your proposal with the team and come back to you by the end of next week”. She advised that “cleaning standards are getting even worse”. She stated that “only one cleaner is working one and a half hours as opposed to the requested three hours since 22 October 2021”. She asked for the landlord to explain why this was the case.
The resident also emailed the landlord on 7 November 2021 to escalate her fire safety complaint. In this email, the resident
1. Referred to the “independent AOV consultant” that she had instructed and the fact that the landlord had not “commented on the specific faults” arising from this. She queried the date of the fire risk assessment that the landlord had said it was carried out on “14 October 2021” and advised that it had been carried out on “16 October 2021”. She requested the “latest fire risk assessment together with the AOV system rectifications report as a matter of urgency”.
2. She questioned the ability of the landlord’s contractor “to complete any adequate repairs as they missed them during the original installation in April 2019 and were not able to notice them during the AOV system inspections”. She had requested “historic information and maintenance reports for the AOV system covering the three years prior to the replacement project, i.e. April 2019”. She advised that the landlord had only provided this from “just before the replacement of the AOV”. She advised that “the extent of the works required and ordered, a whole system replacement, is not indicated anywhere on the service report issued from the visit on the 1 March 2019”. The resident pointed out “inconsistencies” in the records that would “likely lead to ineffective maintenance visits, especially where there are partial checks as a percentage of the installation being undertaken”.
3. She did not accept the landlord’s response that the “partially open vent door” had not been reported previously. She quoted that the “window was not repaired and to date it is still in the same condition”. She stated that an AOV window was reported on 17 December 2020, and 14 February 2021. She advised that a “resident approached your external consultant carrying out a fire risk assessment” and mentioned that the “partially open smoke vent door was still not repaired”. She stated that “any inspections and/or any works carried out by our contractor” was putting residents’ lives “at a serious danger”. She stated that the landlord had “acted negligently and failed in their duty to ensure health and safety of all the residents”.
The landlord’s director emailed the resident on 8 November 2021 to advise that he had been absent from work and “unable to engage with the team”. He stated that the landlord was “working hard to cover all of our commitments with the team but it has proven challenging in the last two to three weeks” due to sickness. He advised he would respond “in due course” and that the service would return to “normal service this week”.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the AOV system on 9 November 2021 and reported that the system was “tested and working fine”. The certificate does not detail whether a sample of AOVs were tested or whether it was the whole system.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2021 to advise that as per its email of 7 October 2021 it had “investigated your concerns in line with its whistleblowing policy and treated your concerns as a formal disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988”. It advised that this had “superseded” its complaint on the matter of fire safety. It advised that it “should have made it clearer that we would not be conducting a complaint review and a whistleblowing review simultaneously and that all the issues you raised would be dealt with via the whistleblowing policy”. It had kept its complaints team “appraised of the investigation”. As the resident was “dissatisfied with my response to the whistleblowing, we are happy to offer an internal review in line with our complaints policy”. Its response would be “provided by Monday 22 November 2021”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021 to chase up a response to the cleaning proposal. She advised that she was aware the director was not at work but as she had copied her email to several other staff members. She advised that “the task of dealing with the complaint should have been delegated” to another member of staff. She referred to her cleaning complaint being “overdue. She referred to a residents’ petition of 19 April 2021 and that it had been agreed that the “building will be cleaned weekly during the total of three hours”. However, on 17 November 2021, she advised that “two cleaners were cleaning” and that they “worked 2.5 hours each”. She requested an explanation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2021 to advise that its “final response to the internal review was dated 14 October 2021. As such the “subsequent email would not be considered part of the internal review”. It advised that issues “were left for me to action on my return from my absence”. It advised that it had requested the “cleaning to be stepped up for a period of time to see what impact it has for you and the other residents”. It advised that its estates supervisor “is inspecting and reviewing your proposal”. It would then respond, “in due course”. It confirmed that the “increase in the cleaning” “will have no impact on your service charge while the trial is being carried out”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2021. She expressed her confusion that her “subsequent email would not be considered part of the internal review” of the complaint. She referred to the landlord’s response letter of 20 September 2021 in which it advised that “as part of our internal review process, we provide a provisional response, giving you five working days to review the outcomes and email us should you want to dispute the findings and outcomes and provide us additional evidence”. She advised that she did respond “disputing the findings and outcomes”. She had provided a “cleaning proposal agreed by the majority of residents”. She expressed her surprise that the landlord’s “estates supervisor is still inspecting and reviewing the proposal when you were provided with clear evidence that the building can be cleaned in three hours”. She asked for an explanation of the landlord’s email.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 December 2021 to apologise for not replying earlier. It advised that it would “formally respond to your comments about the internal review in due course”. It was reviewing the cleaning service and had “instructed the team to not worry about time” “providing it is not under three hours”. The review would have “no impact on your service charge”.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 21 December 2021 in respect of the resident’s AOV complaint of 3 October 2021. In this it detailed:
1. It detailed the “AOV inspection report from 9 November 2021”. It confirmed that a “further site visit was carried out on 18 November 2021”. It provided the detail of this “in-depth inspection”. A table was provided that detailed that it had adjusted the “vent door” on the “1st floor” and in two separate locations, “2nd floor”, “3rd floor”, and that adjustments had been made “tested and left working”. It had commissioned a “further inspection that would take place in January, to evidence that the rectifications have been resolved”. It would share this with the resident.
2. It would be “carrying out a competitive and transparent procurement process for the fire servicing contractor service” which would be awarded by 1 April 2022.
3. It recognised that “the record keeping regarding the AOV maintenance” prior to 2019 was “incomplete”. It had “implemented new processes and systems to improve the robustness of and completeness of our asset management and maintenance records” “since 2020”.
4. It apologised that the “action should have been completed at the time of it being reported”. It confirmed that “following the visit on 18 November 2021” that the “only fault identified was to the vent door on the first floor”. It advised that “this was adjusted and resolved whilst on site”. It asked the resident to notify of “any new repairs”.
5. It acknowledged that there “have been clear service failings in respect of your complaint”. It referred the resident to contact her designated person if she was not satisfied and referral to this Service.
The resident’s consultant provided a report dated 12 January 2022 to the resident outlining concerns with regards to the landlord’s stage two response. The consultant advised that “due to the serious nature of the issues raised there would have been some urgent action by way of investigation and further independent inspections” that would have been instructed by the landlord. This would be “on the basis that independent industry experts had identified significant concerns over the standard of installation and in particular had identified a number of faults that rendered the installation not fully fit for purpose”. It advised that the landlord’s stage two response had taken the view that “the concerns raised are trivial and from a resident who does not fully understand issues and has therefore raised some issues in an alarmist way”. It advised that were “major AOV components “not operating correctly”. It stipulated that the resident’s complaint “relates to essential life safe systems”. The consultant suggested an escalation of the resident’s issues and the fact that “we live with the continual reminder, post Grenfell, that many of the lives were needlessly lost due to resident’s concerns not being listened to and more importantly actioned”. The consultant expected that “anything related to life safe systems would be handled in a much more robust and transparent way”.
The resident’s MP contacted this Service as the designated person on behalf of the resident on 2 February 2022 to refer the complaint for investigation. In the referral the MP advised of the resident’s complaints concerning fire safety, together with a report undertaken by the resident’s contractor dated 16 September 2021. The MP referred to the resident’s report concerning the installation of the AOV system in 2019 and the subsequent management of the building and that this is “exposing residents to health and safety risks”.
The resident confirmed the reasons she was unhappy with the landlord’s final stage two response. She advised that evidence provided by the landlord did not “prove that all the identified faults have been rectified” concerning the AOV system. It had “instructed the same contractor” to remediate all the points of concern who “was not able to install the system properly and their service has fallen short of the standards required”. The AOV inspection report of 18 November 2021 “does not cover all the issues addressed in the independent report”. She advised that the landlord was asked to provide its maintenance reports for the AOV system. The only “servicing records for the AOV system supplied” were for 16 March 2020, 7 August 2020 and 27 August 2021. She wished for the landlord to “repair a partially open smoke vent door and fire doors on all the floors in the building as a matter of urgency”. She wished for the landlord to undertake a “new fire risk assessment” and to ensure that the “AOV system, fire stopping within and around the AOV system and fire doors are maintained and serviced to the high standards in the future” and to “provide the leaseholders with maintenance reports and regular fire risk assessments without any undue delay”.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, there was further correspondence between the landlord and the resident concerning fire safety between 8 February 2022 and 21 February 2022 as the landlord had written to residents to request that “communal fire doors should not be wedged open at any time”. The resident advised on 21 February 2022 that the “communal fire doors were often seen wedged open by your cleaners and/or contractors”. She reported that “not all AOVs are repaired.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an AOV inspection on 9 February 2022 testing 25% of the system which it found was “working okay”.
There was also some further correspondence in connection with the resident’s cleaning complaint between 27 February 2022 and 15 March 2022. The landlord issued a further stage two response on 15 March 2022 in respect of the resident’s complaint concerning cleaning. In this it stated:
1. It would “honour the commitment set out on 15 November 2021 and that three months of cleaning charges will be refunded to all residents and credits applied to each individual service charge account”. It proposed to add credit to “the other 2020/21 adjustments by 31 March” as confirmed in an email of 4 March 2022.
2. It apologised for inconvenience caused. It advised that “lessons will be learnt from this situation to prevent future failings”.
3. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident updated this Service on 4 May 2022 and advised that the landlord had removed the signing in sheet from the notice board in the block for the cleaners in attendance. She advised that she was yet hear back with regard to the review that the landlord had promised to undertake and that the cleaning service continues with two cleaners cleaning for two and half hours on a weekly basis, when one cleaner cleaning for three hours on a weekly basis provided the same level of service.
The landlord has since advised this Service on 23 May 2023 of a proposal that it had made to all residents in the block including the resident’s property to buy back all 69 flats. It had written to residents on 17 May 2023 following a further “intrusive building survey” that it had undertaken at the end of 2022, and a fire risk assessment it had undertaken in October 2022. It advised that remedial works were going to be “more complex than originally thought” and could take “in excess of four years from start to finish”. It was in the process of consulting residents using an independent body.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns within the building.

The AOV inspection records provided by the landlord to the resident along with its complaint response of 21 October 2021 were incomplete with some blank records and some that were signed but not dated or correctly filled in. The records also do not indicate when any rectification of issues was made, such as the partially open vent door. This would not provide the resident or the landlord with sufficient assurance that the landlord’s contractor was fulfilling its obligations. No record has been seen that the landlord questioned the comprehensiveness and reliability of these records with its contractor which would have been appropriate under the circumstances and to ensure that any fire safety risks were properly managed. This also evidenced a lack of oversight by the landlord in the management of its contractor who was supplying incomplete records as the landlord referred to in its complaint response of 21 December 2021. This did not demonstrate the “robust contract management” stipulated in the landlord’s fire safety management framework August 2020, nor a review process on “a sample of assessments and ongoing monitoring”. This was a failing of the landlord.
It was concerning that the resident’s own fire risk assessment contractor who carried out the inspection on 16 September 2021 had identified issues that required urgent rectification, particularly in relation to fire stopping. The contractor remarked on the quality of the installation of AOVs in 2019. It had recommended a “fire stopping survey” as a matter of urgency. The summary of the required interventions was shared with the landlord in the resident’s stage one complaint of 3 October 2021 and the resident had advised that she was sharing the full report shortly after. Therefore the landlord was aware of the rectifications needed at this point and the urgency of this issue when the resident raised this on 3 October 2021. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to instruct the fire stopping survey on an urgent basis given the potential risks in the event of a fire, or at the very least to instruct urgent repairs. However, no record has been seen that this specific survey or work was undertaken by the landlord as a result, or on an urgent basis.
The landlord’s fire safety assessment was carried out by its contractor on 16 October 2021. This also identified a number of issues with regard to fire stopping and recommendations that the landlord needed to ensure were carried out. The risk level was of “moderate harm” indicating issues that the landlord would need to deal with urgently. This report was issued to the landlord on 26 October 2021, however it would be reasonable for the landlord to request early findings given the urgent nature of work needed that was identified by the resident’s consultant. Records have not been seen that the landlord requested any early findings concerning the specific fire safety concerns identified in the resident’s consultant’s report. More concerning was the fact that some of the recommendations identified in the report related to the previous year’s fire risk assessment undertaken by the same contractor, one of which were related to the AOV issue raised by the resident. The report from 2021 indicated that the current status was that the actions with target dates set for January 2021 had been “approved” or “assigned”. This included the “intrusive survey” which given the more recent events could have ensured that the landlord was fully aware of the risks associated with the building at an earlier point rather than exposing the residents to ongoing risks regarding fire safety. This indicates failings of the landlord in keeping track of the required interventions to limit the risk of smoke and fire spread and given the gravity of the consequences of fire should have been acted upon in the timescales set.
In its complaint response of 21 October 2021, the landlord only committed to its contractor visiting on 27 November 2021 “to ensure that the system is fully functioning and to remediate all points of concern”. It had also mentioned that it had shared the resident’s independent consultant’s report which would be reasonably expected given the findings. This did not demonstrate the matter being dealt with appropriate urgency. It is not clear whether this visit took place, as the landlord reported in its stage two complaint response that an inspection had been carried out by its contractor on 18 November 2021 and that some adjustments had been made. This was six weeks after the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s fire safety complaint after it was made aware of the resident’s independent consultant’s report key findings. Given that the landlord was aware of outstanding actions from its own fire risk assessment from 2020, twelve months earlier, along with the serious nature of the resident’s independent assessment, the timescale offered is considered unreasonable.
The resident referring to the landlord’s ‘in depth’ inspection of 18 November 2021 advised that this had failed to address the specific points from the independent consultant’s report to “evidence that the rectifications have been resolved”. It is not clear whether the landlord conducted a further inspection that it referred to in January 2022, though a record was provided of an inspection by the contractor on 9 February 2022 where 25% of the AOV system was tested and found to be “working okay”. This again was a sample of the whole system rather than a full inspection.
In its complaint responses the landlord did recognise that “the record keeping regarding the AOV maintenance” prior to 2019 was “incomplete”. It had “implemented new processes and systems to improve the robustness of and completeness of our asset management and maintenance records” “since 2020”. However, quarterly inspections undertaken by its contractor and the sample seen from 2021 were insufficiently and unreasonably brief as mentioned and did not detail specific actions that had been taken during the inspection. The inspections were primarily of a proportion of the system as opposed to the whole system. It would be expected that the landlord would have an appropriate policy that ratifies a sample survey approach, however, its policy above does not refer to a sample approach. Whilst it may be appropriate to survey a proportion of the system, it would be expected that a full inspection be regularly carried out to ensure there is no system failure in any part of the system. No evidence has been seen that a regular inspection of the full system, as opposed to a sample, was carried out, or the frequency of a full system inspection. The landlord referred to a procurement process in its stage two response of 21 December 2021, however, it did not refer to any requirement to undertake Section 20 consultation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, or whether there was any reason why this was not required which would have been appropriate. The lack of consultation was a matter raised by the resident in her complaint in relation to the original installation of the AOV system in 2019. It is not clear therefore, whether the landlord had considered consultation requirements.
The poor quality oversight and record keeping meant that the landlord was unable to accurately evidence the action taken and provide reliable information to the resident. The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate and robust records so it can evidence the actions taken and provide this accurate information to residents. It also assists the landlord in knowing the age and condition of its properties. This Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) gives a number of recommendations that the landlord should self-assess against. It states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission”. It details that “Dame Judith Hackitt’s report following the Grenfell tragedy specifically recommended the introduction of a ‘golden thread’ – both the information that allows a landlord to understand a building and the steps needed to keep both the building and people safe, now and in the future – as a tool to manage buildings”.
It was right that the landlord apologise that “action should have been completed at the time of it being reported”. It had advised that the fault regarding the partially open vent door on the first floor had been “adjusted and resolved whilst on site” on 18 November 2021. This was reported by the resident in her complaint on 3 October 2021 and also mentioned by the landlord’s contractor who undertook the fire safety assessment on 16 October 2021. However, this took over a month to rectify. Given the importance of fire safety risks, it would be expected that more urgent action would be undertaken by the landlord to rectify faults within the system so that in the event of a fire the AOV system and fire stopping systems would work effectively.
In summary the key failings identified in this investigation are a lack of robust management and oversight of contractors, poor record keeping and a failure of the landlord to undertake urgent works in response to the resident’s complaint of 3 October 2021 and the independent consultant’s report of 16 September 2021 and its own contractor’s report of 16 October 2021. It failed to undertake recommended actions identified from its consultant’s previous fire risk assessment undertaken in 2020, twelve months earlier. This led to the AOV system and fire stopping systems being insufficiently robust to ensure that in the event of a fire, the smoke and fire spread would be limited. Considering the serious risk and urgent nature of the work required, the landlord’s response was not adequate in addressing the issues within an appropriate timescale. These failings amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of the cleaning services within the communal areas.

In respect of the landlord’s handling of the cleaning services within the communal areas, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response and its promised actions that would be undertaken in response to the resident’s complaints. The landlord referred to a possible review of services provided in its letter to the residents’ association that was addressed for the attention of the resident on 16 April 2021. This would have built up the resident’s expectations that the landlord would consider changing the services in response to a review.
It made reference to obtaining some “consensus and agreement on how the service will be delivered in future” in its stage one complaint response of 10 August 2021. It advised in its stage two response of 20 September 2021 that a “full review” of the cleaning service would be undertaken “within the next six weeks”. The landlord continued to make promises of a review in responses of 15 October 2021, 28 October 2021 where it advised that it would get back to the resident the following week. This would have led the resident to believe that she would receive a response by 1 November 2021 along with any outcomes of the review. This was not forthcoming and considered to be a failing.
The resident put in time and effort to produce a proposal for the cleaning service that could have assisted the landlord to come to a “consensus” concerning the standard of service to be achieved and the work to be carried out. The landlord advised on 17 November 2021 that it was “inspecting and reviewing your proposal”, however, no record has been seen of any response that the landlord advised would be sent “in due course” which was meaningless as it provided no expected timeframe for a response. This was unreasonable and there is no evidence that the landlord provided any response or outcome of any review to the resident to date.
Whilst the landlord in the email of 17 November 2021 advised that it had requested the “cleaning to be stepped up for a period of time to see what impact it has for you and the other residents”, the timings during this period on the signing in sheet sent to this Service do not indicate that there was any stepping up of the cleaning service or increased hours. Its statement that its increased cleaning service would have no impact on the resident’s service charges was irrelevant given the number of hours worked were evidently not increased during this period. The sign in sheet showed that on the whole two cleaners were working together for two and a half hours per week generally from 8.00 am until 10.30 am.
The resident advised that the time recordings were sometimes inaccurate, however, no evidence has been seen to precisely confirm the accuracy of the time recordings. As such this Service is unable to corroborate this report. It is evident from the information provided to this Service by the landlord that it only had anecdotal evidence of the frequency and quality of the cleaning service. This did not provide the landlord with sufficiently accurate information on the quality, frequency and timings of the cleaning service that was being paid for through service charges. This evidenced further record keeping issues referred to above.
The landlord advised this Service on 12 July 2023 that it has since put the photobook service in place to provide quality assurance and that it was due to publish service standards. It should therefore share these service standards with the resident to confirm the standards to be expected.
In summary, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it would consider alterations to the cleaning service from April 2021. It promised to carry out a review of the service over a period of time from August 2021 to November 2021. The resident had spent time and effort in putting together the proposal and the landlord failed to consider this to come to a “consensus” for the standard and frequency of cleaning. The landlord failed to update the resident or provide an outcome of a review that it had said it was undertaking. The landlord’s failings caused time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident in chasing up the landlord for a response. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any review outcomes or responses to date. These issues amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident’s complaint concerning cleaning services

In respect of the resident’s complaint concerning cleaning services no records have been seen of the promised updates outlined in the landlord’s final stage two response of 26 March 2021 above arising from the resident’s earlier complaint. The landlord promised that these updates would be provided on a “routine basis every Thursday”. A “contact agreement” has also not been seen with the residents’ association to “rebuild the trust and relationship” with residents.
The resident’s stage one complaint of 26 July 2021 was acknowledged the same day and the landlord’s complaint response was sent one day later than promised to the resident and one day later than the policy timescales on 10 August 2021.
The resident’s escalation request to stage two was made on 23 August 2021. No acknowledgement to this stage two escalation has been seen by this Service. The landlord’s response of 20 September 2021 was sent within its policy timescale. However, it contained a further opportunity for the resident to request a review of the landlord’s decision which she submitted on 26 September 2021.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide”. It states that “landlords must adhere to any reasonable arrangements agreed with residents in terms of frequency and method of communication”. The landlord in this case did not regularly update the resident concerning the progress of the investigation and it was the resident that had to chase up the landlord on a number of occasions for an update. This was not reasonable or in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code and is considered to be a failing.
The landlord then sent a final stage two response on 15 October 2021 where it appropriately apologised for the delay and “lack of communication”. This meant that the final complaint response was sent 39 working days after the resident made her escalation request. This caused an unnecessary delay within the complaints process. After further correspondence from the resident the landlord indicated a further review would take place at stage two and in its email of 1 December 2021 it advised that it would “formally respond to your comments about the internal review in due course”. The landlord then issued a further stage two response on 15 March 2022 where it offered to refund three months’ cleaning costs to the resident which recognised failings in the cleaning service provided.
The complaints process was difficult for the resident to navigate and unnecessarily extended the timeframe for the landlord to respond. This is not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which advises that two complaint stages are preferred. In effect the landlord’s approach contained four stages – stage one, stage two initial response, stage two interim response, stage two final response which was not sent until 15 March 2022 which was 143 working days after the resident’s stage two escalation request of 23 August 2021. This was unreasonable. The additional stages will have also unnecessarily delayed the resident’s referral to this Service.
Furthermore, the landlord’s own complaints policy does not contain these further steps in its complaints process so the practice is not in line with its policy. The resident rightly questioned “where exactly at your complaints policy it is stated”.
Given that the landlord recognised that there had been service failings it would have been appropriate for it to give some consideration of compensation in line with its compensation policy above, however, it did not do this.

The resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns within the building

The resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns of 3 October 2021 was acknowledged within the landlord’s policy timescale on 4 October 2021 and again on 7 October 2021. On 4 October 2021 the resident was advised that a response would be issued under the landlord’s complaints policy. The later acknowledgement advised that a response, would be made under the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and under the landlord’s whistleblowing policy. The resident clearly believed from her email of 10 October 2021 that the complaint would be considered under both policies as she had raised the complaint to be considered under both policies. It is not clear therefore why the complaint was not dealt with at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process alongside the Public Interest Disclosure(s) Act 1988 and whistleblowing policy as these are two separate processes. It does not follow that protection of whistleblowing rights negates the landlord’s obligation to deal with complaints made about its service provision through its formal complaint process. Whilst it would be expected that the responses would be fairly similar, the landlord needed to ensure that its responses were in line with its policies. As the resident had clearly made a complaint this should have been dealt with at stage one under its complaints policy.
The landlord advised the resident that it would respond by 15 October 2021. However, the response was sent on 21 October 2021 which was 13 working days and outside of the landlord’s policy timescales.
The resident escalated her complaint on 7 November 2021 and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 11 November 2021 and the resident was advised by the landlord at this point the complaint would be dealt with as part of complaints process. This would have caused confusion with the stage one complaint being dealt with under a different process. The landlord advised that a response would be sent by 22 November 2021 and once again it delayed this response which was not provided until 21 December 2021, which was 31 working days later. There is no record seen that the landlord updated the resident with regard to the reason for the delay in responding which was not reasonable. It was more unreasonable given the serious nature of the complaint made and the fire safety concerns that had been raised by the resident.
The complaint responses did not consider any compensation for the service failings that the landlord had recognised had taken place. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider compensation in line with its policy above.

Summary of the landlord’s complaint handling

In summary the landlord’s complaint handling for the cleaning complaint was unwieldy and caused unnecessary delay in the complaints process. Its complaints practice was inconsistent with its policy with the additional unnecessary stages that would delay the resident referring her complaint to this Service. The landlord built up the resident’s expectations that it would consider alterations to the cleaning service as promised in its responses, as well as give consideration to the resident’s proposal. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the resident with any review outcomes or properly considered the resident’s own cleaning proposal. The resident had to regularly chase up the landlord for responses and it took additional time, effort and inconvenience for the resident progress her complaint with the landlord. The complaints process in respect of the resident’s fire safety complaint was confusing with stage one being dealt with through a different process, despite the landlord advising the resident on 4 October 2021 that the complaint would be considered under the complaints policy. This meant that in effect no stage one complaint response was issued under the landlord’s policy. There was a delay in the stage two response of 31 working days, which given the serious nature of the complaint was unreasonable. Again, no consideration of any compensation was given regardless of service failings identified by the landlord. These failings taken altogether amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns within the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the maintenance and cleaning services within the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s reports concerning repairs to the fire doors is determined as outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s reports concerning the lack of consultation under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the standard of AOV works from 2019 is determined as outside jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord’s oversight and management of its contractors was insufficiently robust and not in accordance with its policy. Its record keeping did not provide sufficient evidence that would be required to assist in the proper oversight of fire safety within the building containing the resident’s property. The sample survey methodology used by its contractors was not substantiated by the landlord’s policy. The sample survey approach meant that only a small sample of the AOV system was tested which would not give the landlord assurance that the whole system was effective. It failed to act within a reasonable timescale in connection with the serious nature of the reported fire safety concerns by the resident, the independent consultant and its own consultant. It failed to carry out recommended actions from its consultant’s previous fire risk assessment undertaken in 2020 which were due to be completed in January 2021. These actions were “assigned” or “approved” at the date of its subsequent fire risk assessment 12 months’ later, indicating a lack of urgency in implementing the required actions. The inaction placed its residents at an elevated risk in the event of any fire as noted in the consultant reports.
The landlord made promises concerning alterations and a review of the cleaning service that will have raised the resident’s expectations from the period April 2021 to November 2021. The resident had to chase up the landlord for a response to the promised reviews and for the outcomes, along with the landlord’s response to the proposal that she had spent time and effort in developing. No evidence has been seen that the landlord provided any review outcomes or that it had properly considered the resident’s cleaning proposal to come to a “consensus” on the future standards and frequency of cleaning within the building.
The landlord’s complaint handling practice differed to its own policy allowing a further period of time for a resident to request a review at stage two. This elongated the complaint process, and a timely response was not provided. It also meant that the possibility of a referral to this Service was unnecessarily delayed. The landlord did not give any consideration of compensation in light of its recognised service failings in line with its policy. There was unreasonable delay in its complaint responses. The landlord did not issue a stage one response, despite referring to a response that would be provided under its complaints process, to the resident’s fire safety complaint. This caused unnecessary confusion with the resident’s fire safety complaint.
For the reasons set out in paragraph 4 above, and in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s reports concerning repairs to the fire doors is determined as outside jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out in paragraph 5 above, and in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s reports concerning the lack of consultation under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the standard of AOV works from 2019 is determined as outside jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above for the failings outlined in this report. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £2,400 in respect of the resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns within the building.
3. Pay the resident £500 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the maintenance and cleaning services within the communal areas.
4. Pay the resident £500 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with the service standards and schedules that have been developed and were due to published in June 2023.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a response to her cleaning proposal and its review of the cleaning service.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to complete any outstanding works to the AOV system and provide this Service with confirmation of satisfactory completion. The landlord should also review its approach, if it has not already done so, to AOV systems and oversight processes and provide this Service with confirmation of its review detailing actions to be undertaken as a result.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and Resident’s Panel outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its policy and procedures for contract management and operational oversight, including contractor performance for managing agents responsible for the management and maintenance of its properties and residents, informed by its self-assessment.
3. Its intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles and Section 5 – Complaint Stages with reference to complaint stages. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.