Tower Hamlets Homes (202011685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011685

Tower Hamlets Homes

15 November 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s front door. Specifically, in regard to:
1. the security grilles.
2. a glass panel.
3. the type of lock.
4. associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat in a block.
On 23 August 2019, residents were sent a letter detailing the landlord’s “front entrance door programme”. The landlord explained that the front doors in the flats did not comply with current fire safety requirements and were to be replaced. The works were to be part of a major works programme.
On 26 May 2020, the landlord sent a further letter explaining that the works had been postponed due to Covid-19, to follow government guidelines. However, with recent changes to guidelines it believed it was safe to resume work. It said its contractors would make contact with tenants to arrange appointments.
On 17 June 2020, the landlord’s contractor sent a letter explaining that residents would be able to select their door design. It provided a “door choice sheet”. The letter stated that residents in flats would have a ballot, and the final door selection would be based on the majority decision. It also advised that any security grills would be removed, as requested by the fire brigade.
According to the landlord’s later complaint response, the resident sent an enquiry to the landlord through social media in November 2020, regarding the replacement of his front door. He did not receive a response.
On 7 January 2021, the resident sent a formal complaint to the landlord. He copied this Service into the email. The landlord later said it did not receive the complaint. In his complaint the resident explained that:
1. The original door he selected on the ballot form had glass panels; he was then sent another form with that option removed; the only other choices were solid doors. He felt this was unacceptable as the light levels in his flat would decrease and he thought the replacement should be similar to the existing door.
2. He had previously inquired about the type of lock in the new door, as this has implications for his home insurance, but he had not received a response.
3. He had a security grille fitted over his door because of homophobic hate mail and death threats he’d previously received. When it was installed, the police did a security check, determined it was safe and assisted him to develop an escape plan. He said the police advised it would not be an issue with the fire service. The security grille also had implications for his insurance policy.
4. He still hadn’t received a date for when his door would be replaced, despite needing to be changed to be in line with fire safety regulations.
5. When he had raised these concerns through social media, he was told someone would contact him with a response, but he heard nothing more.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 25 February 2021. We explained that he wanted to complain about its handling of the door replacement, and that he had said he had already complained to the landlord, but not received a response.
The landlord emailed the resident the next day to acknowledge his complaint and said it would contact him within the next two days to discuss and decide the most appropriate way to resolve it.
The landlord sent its complaint response to the resident on 4 March 2021. It referred to a phone discussion its officer had had with the resident earlier that day. It set out that it understood the resident’s complaint to be:
1. He had not yet been contacted by the major works team about issues he had with his front door.
2. He had contacted the out of hours repairs team on 27 February 2021 about the glass window in his door being broken. An operative had attended to make the glass safe, but despite the resident chasing for an update on 1 March, nobody else had attended to repair the damage. He had plans to travel at the time and so arranged the repair himself. He felt he should have been contacted earlier.
3. The landlord explained that it had no record of previous enquiries or complaints about the door from the resident. It said it had asked its major works team to contact him as soon as possible to address his concerns. It apologised for not following up the door window repair. It said the repair job had been raised, but an appointment had not been scheduled at the time the resident had subsequently made contact and cancelled it. It hoped its response resolved the resident’s concerns, but explained how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2021 in response to the stage one complaint. He advised he still had not been contacted by the major works team and as a result wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two. He also explained that he had originally raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 January 2021 and included it in his email.
On 14 April, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said it received it on 8 April 2021.
On 5 May 2021, the resident requested an update on the progress of the complaint.
On 6 May 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response. It explained that:
1. It had no record of the resident’s complaint until it was contacted by this Service.
2. His enquiry in November 2020 had been received, and a response written, but due to an error it had not been sent.
3. It had attempted to contact the resident twice on 10 March 2021 (in response to the concerns he had wanted to raise with the major works team) but had not been able to reach him or leave a voicemail.
4. It apologised for poor communication from the contractor.
5. Covid lockdowns and supply issues with the doors had caused delays to the works, it apologised that this had not been communicated.
6. A second works phase had been created for the door replacements, which would include the resident’s home, expected to be in the summer. The contractor was likely to be different to the one used in 2020. The landlord would be writing to tenants “shortly” to update them.
7. It had proven not possible to provide a glazed or panelled door option, due to the size of the doorway opening. However, if further options became available in the second phase they would be added to a new ballot for residents. However, the small window present over the current door was likely to be retained, which would allow some light to enter.
8. The entire door would be replaced, including the frames. The door would have a four-point locking system.
9. The security grille was not permitted due to fire safety risks, such as causing delays in leaving the property and hindering access by the fire service. It assured the resident the new door would be secure so a security grille would not be necessary. Nonetheless, while it would need to be removed to allow the new door to be installed, the resident could ask for permission to reinstate it afterwards. It provided contact details for following doing so.
10. The landlord explained that its complaint process had now been exhausted, and gave details for this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded to the stage two response on 7 May 2021. He advised he had no record of the landlord’s attempted calls on 10 March or of a missed phone call. He disputed the reason the landlord gave for not having a glazed door style available.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states “you must not carry out any improvement works to your home without getting our written permission first (which will not be refused without a good reason)”.
The landlord’s complaint handling procedure states:
1. A complaint must be acknowledged within 48 hours.
2. At both stage one and two the landlord aims to issue a response within 20 working days, if this is exceeded the resident will be notified.
3. The resident must be called within 48 working hours of a complaint being made to discuss the complaint details, their desired outcome, and the timeframe.
4. Where possible, the landlord aims to acknowledge social media messages within 15 minutes and respond to social media enquiries within 4 hours
The complaint policy states that in order to investigate a complaint the landlord should “be in receipt of the full history of the complaint including sight of all correspondence and communication”. It also states it will provide” an explanation that answers all the points raised”.
In the ‘Tower Hamlets Homes’ approach to fire safety’ policy document, the landlord explains that the fire safety works program will be delivered over three years, commencing in 2019. The programme includes installing flat entrance fire doors.
Under the landlord’s fire safety advice, it states “tenants with new front doors do not need to consider a front door grille as doors are secure. We plan to replace all older front doors.”

The security grille

The landlord’s stated purpose for the door replacement is to comply with fire safety regulations. In the stage two complaint response the landlord said the reason security grilles would be removed, when the doors are replaced, is to reduce the risk posed to residents. It explained why the grills were considered a risk. Its explanations were logical and pragmatic, and reasonable grounds on which to base its decision that the resident’s door grille would need to be removed.
Conversely, the resident explained to the landlord the reasons why he had the grille, and wanted to retain it i.e. for his own personal safety. His grounds were entirely understandable. He also explained how he had come to install the grille with support and assistance from the police. However, a door security grille installed in these circumstances would usually require permission from the landlord, as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. No evidence has been provided showing that the resident had permission. Nor was evidence shown to the landlord of the previous police involvement that led to the grille’s installation. Furthermore, ultimately, decisions about the safety of their properties are the landlord’s to make, using its discretion balanced by the relevant circumstances and facts. The landlord explained how the resident could potentially request permission to reinstall the grille, which would usually entail an assessment of the situation with the new door along with the resident’s circumstances and concerns.
In its second complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, explained why it wanted to remove the grilles, and suggested a way in which he could seek to reinstall it afterwards. Overall, its handling of and response to this issue was reasonable.

The glass panel

The resident sought for the replacement door to have a glass panel, so that he could maintain the same light levels into his flat. As with the grille, the landlord explained why that particular style option had turned out not to be available. The resident later disputed the landlord’s explanation, but nothing in the evidence provided for this investigation suggests what the landlord told him was inaccurate or otherwise incorrect. The landlord explained the situation with the initial door selection, and the potential for new options in the next phase of the works. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.

The lock

The resident enquired of the landlord the type of lock in the new doors. He explained the lock type was a requirement for his home insurance and he was concerned with the safety implications of an insufficient lock. His enquiry was a valid and relevant one, given a tenant’s general obligation to have home contents insurance, and the resident’s own particular security concerns.
In response the landlord explained only that there would be a “four- point locking system”. That was a limited response to the enquiry and cannot reasonably be said to address the resident’s security concerns or the implications for his insurance. If the landlord did not have sufficient information or knowledge to respond it should have signposted the resident elsewhere for the information. It would be expected of the landlord to answer all questions raised in the complaint, to an appropriate level of detail, within a reasonable timeframe. Regarding the enquiry into type of lock that would be fitted, the landlord failed to adequately provide the information the resident requested and as a result did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, or his basic concerns. That was a service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not appropriately respond to the resident’s social media enquiries, as it failed to send a response. It therefore failed to follow its complaint procedure which states “it aims to respond to social media enquiries within 4 hours”. It acknowledged its mistake and apologised in its stage two response. Following this, the resident submitted his stage one complaint on 7 January 2020. The landlord did not receive it, and only contacted the resident after this Service intervened. Although we received the original email, and the resident sent it to two of the landlord’s email addresses (which both appear to be correct), the landlord did not. There is not enough information to determine why it did not, and no way to know if it was due to human error or an IT problem. Nonetheless, it should naturally be of concern to the landlord, and something for it to investigate. Once it was made aware of the resident’s concerns in February 2021 the landlord followed its procedure by promptly contacting the resident to discuss his complaint and issuing its formal response in good time.
The resident sent his request to escalate his complaint on 22 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged it on 14 April 2021, saying it had received it on 8 April. Its published timeframe for acknowledging a complaint is 48 hours. Accordingly, the landlord failed to identify that the request was received on 22 March, and failed to acknowledge it in good time, even for the later date of 8 April. The landlord issued its stage two response on 6 May 2021, 33 working days after the complaint was escalated on 22 March 2021. Its policy states that complaints must be responded to within 20 working days, or to notify the complainant if that is exceeded. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept the resident updated on his complaint progress as the policy requires. Furthermore, the landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its final response, despite the fact the resident had to send a follow up email on 5 May 2021 as he had still not received a response.
There are always occasions when the circumstances of a complaint mean a response cannot be provided within the designated timeframe. However, this is usually to be expected when complaints are more complex and further investigation is required. If the timeframes are to be exceeded it would be expected that the landlord would contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. That was not done in this case, and the consistent failings to comply with its complaint’s handling policy caused a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident, and predictable frustration and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did not address these failures in its stage two complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. the security grilles.
2. the glass panel.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. its handling of the resident’s enquiries about the type of lock.
2. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation for removal of the security grille and for why the resident cannot have a glass panel in his door.
The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s query about the type of lock and did not address his insurance concerns.
The landlord failed to adhere to the timeframes outlined in its complaint’s handling procedure, keep the resident updated on the complaint progress or acknowledge its failings.

Orders

In light of the resident’s time and trouble from the failings identified in this report, within six weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident £150:
1. £75 for its poor complaint handling.
2. £75 for not responding reasonably to his lock and insurance enquiry.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should also, within six weeks, provide suitable information about the door lock to address the resident’s insurance concerns.
Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service by the six-week deadline.