Wandle Housing Association Limited (202109133)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109133

Wandle Housing Association Limited

10 March 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of nuisance caused by a neighbour using the fire door.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, owned by the landlord.

Summary of events

  1. A meeting took place in September 2019 with the landlord and some residents of the building. The meeting minutes said that the landlord had reminded all in attendance that fire exits were not to be used in non-emergencies, as this compromised the door and caused disturbance to surrounding neighbours.
  2. On 14 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
    1. Regarding the continued noise created by use of the emergency fire door, it acknowledged that this continued to have a significant effect on the resident’s wellbeing.
    2. It had been in touch with the neighbour concerned and was continuing to discuss the issue with them. It said this was ongoing and it was seeking advice regarding any possible tenancy action if the matter continued.
    3. It said that as a way forward, it was offering the resident and their neighbour mediation as a means of resolution.
  3. On 30 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and said the matter regarding the fire door was being closed on 2 October 2020. It said it was, however, still aware that the fire door continued to be used and was having an impact on surrounding neighbours. It said this would continue to be monitored.
  4. On 16 February 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage one response after receiving a complaint. This said:
    1. There was a persistent perpetrator using the fire exit near the resident’s property, which was causing the resident disturbance.
    2. The perpetrator had been spoken to by the landlord and given a warning letter regarding their behaviour.
    3. All residents were sent a copy of minutes circulated in September 2019. Then in 2020, all residents were again reminded about not using the fire exit as a means of leaving the building.
    4. It further confirmed that the case had been referred to its fire officer in order to explore options which would prevent residents from using the fire exit.
    5. Finally, it said the case was ongoing, and it was working closely with the neighbourhood officer, legal team, and fire officer in order to find a lasting solution to the matter. It said the case had been escalated for further intervention due to ongoing ASB. However, it thought it had managed the case in line with its procedures, but would keep the resident updated with any progress.
  5. The landlord then looked into possible options to prevent the fire door being used as a normal means of exit from the building.
  6. The resident responded to the landlord on 15 March 2021. He said he had been complaining for over two years about a neighbour using the emergency exit. He told the landlord that this was causing him a lot of stress, and asked that the landlord sort it out.
  7. On 6 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that it had identified a safety lock/hammer which would stop residents from using the fire exit for everyday use. The landlord advised that the devices would be ordered and a date given when they were due to be fitted. The landlord also said that it would be sending a letter to all residents advising them when the fire door should be used, and that if anyone was found to be using the fire door as a means of entering and exiting the building, then formal action would be taken in all cases.
  8. In August 2021, an internal email between the landlord and its contractor confirmed that a resident had been going through the fire exit door to smoke, and leaving the door wedged open, which was upsetting other residents in the vicinity. The landlord opted for a device to be placed on the door so that it could only be opened in emergencies. This device was then installed in September 2021.
  9. The resident got in touch with this Service to advise that the landlord had put the device on the wrong fire exit. He said he had made the landlord aware of this, but it had not responded.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy says that when it receives an ASB complaint, it will respond promptly and assess the full circumstances of the case. This will determine its response, and any intervention measures it may need to take to address the ASB. It says the intervention action it takes will be appropriate and proportionate to the nature, scale and extent of the problem.
  2. It is apparent that the use of the fire exit as an everyday means of exit from the building has been a source of nuisance to the resident, apparently due to the noise caused by the use of the door.
  3. Though in any event, it was reasonable for the landlord to say that a fire exit should only be used in emergencies, and that continued use of the door as a regular exit could compromise the door.
  4. As it was one particular neighbour that was using the fire exit regularly, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the neighbour about the matter. The landlord confirmed it had given the neighbour a warning letter, and also offered mediation between the parties. It also said it would remind all residents not to use the fire exits, and advise that formal action would be taken if this happened. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in response to the issue, which was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  5. However, the steps taken by the landlord did not resolve the matter. As this continued to cause a problem for the resident, the landlord looked into other solutions. That was appropriate.
  6. The landlord decided upon a device that would prevent the fire door from being used regularly, and this was installed. The landlord’s action here was reasonable.
  7. It is not clear how many fire exits are in the building, though it appears the device has only been placed on one of the fire exits, even though the landlord’s stage two complaint response seemed to refer to more than one device being fitted.
  8. The resident says that the device was placed on the wrong fire exit. It is assumed that means it is not on the fire door nearest to his property. That does not mean that it was fitted to the wrong door, as it is not known if other fire exits were being used and causing a disturbance to other residents. Though it is accepted that this solution may not be helpful for the resident. The resident is advised to consider making a further formal complaint if the landlord does not ensure that the door closest to him is fitted with the prevention device.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of nuisance caused by a neighbour using the fire door.

Reasons

  1. The landlord spoke with the perpetrator, gave them a warning letter when they continued to use the fire exit and also offered to arrange mediation between the parties. Taking into account the issue, these were appropriate actions. When the matter did not resolve, the landlord looked at other options, and eventually decided to install a device on the fire door.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to carry out an assessment of the building in order to decide whether further devices need to be installed on the remaining fire exits. If the landlord installed the existing device on the wrong fire exit in error, then it should arrange for the device to instead be installed on the door nearest to the resident.
  2. The landlord must consider that the finding in this case is mainly based on its decision to install a preventive device to the door. Thus, it should confirm its intentions regarding this recommendation to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.