Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited (202109379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109379

Women’s Pioneer Housing Limited

14 July 2023

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disturbance from the fire alarm panel.
2. The resident’s concerns that a part of her home is accessible by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom ground floor flat within a building that has communal areas. This is on an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that began in 2014.
The tenancy agreement, section 2 (2), refers to the landlord agreeing not to interfere with the resident’s right to live peacefully in the property unless:
1. It needs to enter the property to inspect the condition; or
2. The court has granted possession of the property by ending it; or
3. Access is required under the Gas Safety Regulations 1998.
The tenancy agreement states that the property has use of communal parts. Section 2 (5) refers to repair of common parts and states:
1. Where the property is part of a building or estate owned by the landlord, it is to take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish, chutes and other common parts (including their electrical lighting) in reasonable repair and fit to be used by the resident or other people who live in or visit the property.
The landlord has a fire safety policy and it references that maintenance of the communal fire detection and alarm systems are carried out on a quarterly basis with a weekly alarm test in sheltered schemes and offices.
The landlord has a complaints policy that has a two stage process, stating that complaints at stage one will be considered by a director and it aims to respond within 10 working days. If issues are not resolved, the resident may ask for escalation to stage two within one month of receiving the stage one response. The chief executive will decide whether a stage two panel is required and, if not, the relevant director will be asked to review their stage one response and issue a final decision.
The landlord has a compensation policy and it gives examples for inconvenience and distress of around £25 for specific service failure that could have been avoided.

Summary of Events

On 22 July 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident to acknowledge a stage one complaint. It confirmed that it aimed to send the response by 4 August 2021.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had received the complaint via this Service on 21 July 2021. It outlined its understanding of the complaint to be about the location of a communal fire alarm panel and concluded:
1. It had reviewed the letter from the Ombudsman and confirmed that the fire panel was not located within the resident’s home. It confirmed that under the terms of the tenancy, the resident’s property is located beyond the internal flat door and did not include the small lobby between the external door and the resident’s flat door.
2. It noted that although the resident will access the lobby the most, it is considered a communal area and she must not store personal belongings in the area.
3. The fire panel was located in a cupboard in the communal lobby in question and its contractors may at time need to access it.
4. It was concerned that the resident had said that the area was not left secure when the contractors had accessed it and this made her feel vulnerable. It said that this should not be happening and it would raise this with the contractor. It advised the resident to raise any future issues with it immediately so that it could address this at the time it happens.
5. It confirmed that it had considered whether the fire alarm panel could be relocated and it advised that this was not practical as there were no suitable alternative locations within the building.
6. It confirmed that in 2017 it had carried out significant improvement work to the fire alarm system to reduce the number of false alarms.
7. It advised the resident that if she wanted to escalate the complaint, she should contact it no later than 1 September 2021.
On 9 August 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord advising that she could not accept the stage one complaint decision and requested that it was escalated to stage two. She believed that the fire panel was situated in her flat and had been repeatedly disturbed over the last seven years, particularly as she works nights and said that the situation was affecting her health. The resident expressed her fear and anxiety over the situation due to not knowing who will be accessing the area.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord’s internal emails showed that the resident’s previous email had been missed. It requested that a review of the complaint was carried out to decide if the stage one complaint should be reviewed or sent to a panel for a decision in line with its complaints policy.
On the same day, the landlord’s chief executive confirmed that it should go to panel and requested photographs showing where the fire alarm was situated.
On 7 September 2021, the landlord’s records show an internal email advising of the position of the fire panel and confirming that it was connected to all the fire alarms and smoke detectors in blocks C-F, and not the block of the resident as these were individual alarms. It confirmed that the panel could not be easily moved due to the cabling, but it could see whether a repeater panel could be provided and fitted into the adjacent boiler room and the main panel could possibly be silenced (if this was permitted).
On 7 September 2021, the landlord emailed an electrical contractor, advising of an issue with the noise from the fire panel and requested advice on whether a repeater would be possible if it was installed in the adjacent boiler room, so that the main panel could remain silent.
On 8 September 2021, the electrical contractor confirmed to the landlord the options in relation to relocation positions for the fire panel. It did not recommend that the buzzer within the panel was physically disabled as it was part of the functionality of the alarm and it would be listed as a defect when serviced.
On the same day, the landlord’s internal emails confirmed a telephone conversation with the electrical contractor. It noted that it was familiar with the layout of the building and believed the resident’s bedroom was adjacent to the electrical room. It said that the best option would be to relocate the fire panel to the boiler room. It said that it could not guarantee that the sound would not travel but it would not be immediately adjacent to the resident’s flat.
On 8 September 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident thanking her for the escalation request of 9 August 2021. It apologised for the delay in its response. It confirmed that in line with its complaints policy, the chief executive had considered the stage one complaint and confirmed that the stage one response should be reviewed. It confirmed that it aimed to send its response within 10 working days by 21 September 2021.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint review to the resident. It confirmed the following:
1. On 4 August 2021, the stage one complaint response was sent to the resident.
2. On 9 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, asking to take her complaint to the next stage. The email was missed and on 7 September 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to investigate the complaint.
3. On 8 September 2021, it apologised that it had missed the email and confirmed that its stage one complaint would be reviewed and responded to by 21 September 2021.
4. It had previously confirmed in the stage one complaint response that the fire alarm panel was in a communal area, rather than in the resident’s flat, and that moving the panel was not a practical option as there were no suitable alternative locations.
5. It confirmed that the lobby between the external entrance door and the door to the resident’s property was not demised to her and it had always been communal. It confirmed that it has access because it has equipment located in this area.
6. The complaint was in relation to impact of being disturbed by the noise from the fire panel when it is activated.
7. It wanted to ensure it had reviewed every possible option so had asked its electrical contractor, who maintained the alarms, for advice and they confirmed there was no practical location for it to be re-sited outside of the block. However, they made suggestions to where it could possibly be re-sited within the resident’s block of:
1. Moving it to the electrical intake room adjacent to the lobby.
2. Moving it to the communal boiler room at the rear of the block.
3. Moving it to the external wall of the block facing the pathway.
1. It had reviewed the floor plans for this block and the electrical intake room was next to the resident’s bedroom and therefore moving it would not resolve the problem and could potentially make it worse. However, it asked its contractor to investigate further the practicalities of resiting to one of the other options.
2. It would need to take account of whether there was sufficient space, that it would not compromise the existing equipment and that it was cost effective.
3. In relation to the external wall, it would need to take account of cost effectiveness, security and exposure to the elements.
4. It confirmed that the two latter options should be possible, depending on costs, but it may have to consult all residents in the block as the fire alarm is a service charge cost.
5. The electrical contractor had confirmed that the noise made by the panel could not be silenced.
6. It said that it could not guarantee that the resident would not hear the fire alarm even when it was relocated.
7. It apologised for the resident’s missed email of 9 August 2021, and it offered £25 compensation.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident its further complaint review response. It provided the outcome of the feasibility study in relation to repositioning of the fire alarm panel. It confirmed that:
1. Its current location was in a communal store cupboard in a small lobby outside of the resident’s flat entrance door. Its engineers required access to this area to service the panel and also, if activated, the fire service need to gain access.
2. The panel was connected to fire alarm devices in blocks C-F of the building as well as the electrical intake room and boiler room that are both situated in block B adjacent to the resident’s home.
3. The system was programmed so that if a detector in blocks C-F was activated, the sounder nearest to the resident’s home would not go off as there was no danger to her due to the remote location from her home.
4. If one of the detectors in the electrical intake room or boiler room activated, then the resident would be alerted and expected to evacuate.
5. When a detector is activated, the panel will emit a sound, creating an alert that there is activity on the system and the ‘bleep’ will continue until the alarm has been reset.
6. The resident had said she found this disturbing and asked for the fire panel to be repositioned and the landlord agreed to look at the options which were:
  1. Move the fire panel to the electrical intake room. It did not feel that relocating to this area would be of any advantage as the area backs on to the resident’s home.
  2. Move the panel to the communal boiler room in block B. Again, this area backed onto the resident’s home and would not be of any advantage to her in relation to the noise.
  3. Move it to the external wall. This was an option, but it would need to be fitted in a weatherproof cabinet and it felt that in time, it may result in premature deterioration of the panel.
  4. It investigated the possibility of repositioning the panel to one of the refuse cupboards between blocks C-F. It felt this was the most practical solution and it therefore agreed to move the panel to this location.
  5. It confirmed that an order would be raised with its electrical contractor, and it would likely start work in mid-November 2021.
7. It acknowledged a delay in responding to the resident’s email and confirmed that it had previously offered £25 compensation and apologised that it had missed the email of 9 August 2021.
On 26 October 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord thanking it for its understanding of the situation.

Summary of Events after landlord’s complaints process

On 29 November 2021, a job was logged to change the communal lobby door entrance lock. Keys were given to the resident and landlord.
On 2 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, advising it that she did not want the landlord to keep a key. She asked that if jobs were required in the lobby area, it should make an appointment and she believed the communal area was part of the flat.
On the same day, the landlord responded to the resident. It reiterated that it required a key as the lobby was considered to be a ‘common area’ that it was required to inspect. It assured the resident that the key could only be accessed by its staff and contractors.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident another email to confirm that it is required to inspect the ‘common area’ under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Fire Safety Act 2021 and therefore it requires access. It reiterated that the resident has access to the common parts, but it is not demised for her use and no items should be stored in this area as it would be a contravention of the landlord’s fire safety policy. It confirmed that it would be keeping a key.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord’s records show that the fire alarm had been repositioned on 29 November 2021 and the contractor returned on 2 December 2021 to finish the work.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disturbance from the fire alarm panel

The resident raised her concerns about the presence of the alarm via a complaint and the landlord responded within its complaints timeframe, confirming that it had previously carried out significant improvement work to the fire alarm system to reduce the number of false alarms. It also demonstrated that it considered whether the panel could be relocated but, at this early point, it felt that it was not practical as it believed there were no suitable alternative locations within the building.
The resident emailed the landlord in August 2021, expressing her dissatisfaction with this outcome. However, due to an error, this email was overlooked, and it was not until early September 2021 that the landlord considered the complaint request. It agreed that it should go to panel for review in accordance with its complaint procedure. It is unclear if this happened as the evidence suggests the stage one complaint was reviewed. Nevertheless, the landlord progressed the complaint when it recognised the error, apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £25. This was an appropriate response from the landlord to cover the identified delay of one month.
In September 2021, the landlord demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to fully consider the issue with the location of the fire panel by:
1. considering the areas served by the fire alarm system;
2. taking advice from its electrical contractor who was responsible for its maintenance;
3. considering options for the panel to be repositioned, including whether steps could be taken to disable the buzzer to reduce the impact of the noise on the resident.
It also demonstrated that it thoroughly assessed the layout of the building in relation to the resident’s home before it decided on the most appropriate option as it did not want to make the situation worse for the resident. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take and it demonstrated that it was considering the matter seriously in trying to reduce the impact of the noise on the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home.
In late September 2021, the landlord sent its complaint review where it gave a comprehensive assessment of the facts and confirmed that it was considering two options. It wanted its electrical contractor to investigate further in relation to the practicalities of re-siting the alarm panel. This was a reasonable step to take as it sought to ensure it made the right decision based on the opinion of suitably qualified contractors, particularly as the matter not only affected the resident but all other residents in the building.
In October 2021, the landlord provided the outcome of its feasibility study and again it gave a comprehensive assessment of the facts of the case, including the options it had considered. It made the decision to reposition the fire alarm panel to one of the refuse cupboards as it felt this was the most practical solution and a date was given to start work in mid November 2021. This demonstrated that the landlord provided a comprehensive response to the resident and had made its decision based on a thorough review of the options available to it. There was a slight delay with the repositioning of the fire panel and this work was completed early December 2021.
In summary, within the five month period from the resident’s complaint being raised, the landlord has demonstrated that it carried out a comprehensive review of the situation and took steps to reduce the noise that the resident was experiencing. The decision to relocate the fire alarm panel was not one that the landlord could make lightly. It not only had to consider the costs associated with this work but it had to undertake a full feasibility assessment of the building as the impact of its relocation was likely to have had a health and safety implication and potentially affected all occupiers of the building.

The resident’s concerns that a part of her home is accessible by the landlord

The resident raised concerns about a lobby area (in front of her flat entrance door) in July 2021 and the landlord responded through its complaints process in August 2021. It confirmed that the area in question was a communal area and her items must not be stored in the area. It said that its contractors required access to maintain the fire alarm panel.
Later in the landlord’s complaint review, it clarified that this lobby area was not demised to the resident and had always been communal. It confirmed that its equipment was located in the area and it required access. The tenancy agreement does not specifically refer to the communal lobby area. However, it does confirm that the resident has use of communal parts and the landlord is responsible for maintenance of these parts – the landlord’s response was therefore appropriate in clarifying the use of the lobby.
The resident had raised concerns that the door to the lobby was left open on occasions and this made her feel vulnerable given the close proximity to her home. The landlord responded appropriately and confirmed that this was not acceptable and it would speak to its contractors but she should inform it if and when this happened in the future so that it could deal with the matter at the time. Given that the lobby area is in such close proximity to the resident and that she has to enter the area to access her flat, this was an appropriate response from the landlord. It demonstrated that it reasonably sought to reduce the likelihood of the area being left open in future while offering to investigate if this happened again.
The resident requested that the locks be changed to the lobby area and once the landlord had repositioned the fire alarm, it carried out this work giving the new key to the resident and keeping a key for its staff to use when it required to access the area. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the landlord has appropriately designated the lobby as communal. However, changing the locks to give the resident reassurance and retain a key for its use was a reasonable step for it to take.
Given that the fire alarm panel has now been re-sited, it is unclear what equipment is within the ‘communal lobby’ that the landlord requires to maintain. As the resident’s home is within such close proximity to the lobby and given the fact that she has to access this area to enter her home, it would be reasonable (given the resident’s anxiety and her work pattern of night shifts) for the landlord to explain to the resident the frequency of its access to this area and consider whether any steps can be taken to minimise the impact of disturbance on the resident, such as giving her prior notice of visits.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disturbance from the fire alarm panel.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s concerns that a part of her home is accessible by landlord’s staff.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in considering the disturbance caused by the fire alarm panel; it considered all of its options within a reasonable timescale and relocated the panel to another site within the building to reduce the impact of the noise on the resident.
The landlord had designated the lobby as ‘communal’ and it explained this to the resident. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the lobby area is considered part of the resident’s property. The landlord changed the lock to the door for this area to give reassurance to the resident and reasonable decided it needed to retain a key in order to maintain its equipment.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

Considering the close proximity of the communal lobby to the resident’s property and that she has to access this area to enter her flat, it is recommended that the landlord to explain to her:
1. The equipment it is required to maintain within the area.
2. The likely frequency of access to the area.
3. How it can minimise disturbance to the resident when it requires access and whether it would consider giving the resident prior notice for access to this area.
The landlord should consider explaining to new tenants (as part of the tenancy sign up process) any areas in the vicinity of their property that are designated as a communal area.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.