Your Housing Group Limited (202303695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303695

Your Housing Limited

12 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to replace an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, and the property is a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities in the household.

Summary of events

3. In 2021 a Fire Risk Assessment of the building found significant risk and required remedial work to prevent the spread of toxic fumes or gasses through the existing bathroom venting arrangements in the building, including the resident’s property. Remedial works were carried out by the landlord on 26 August 2022 when it replaced the old extractor fan with a new one.
4. Shortly after the resident complained that: the change was not necessary as the previous fan was in working order; the cost of the new fan was a waste because it was on all the time; he was given no manual to explain its operation; and he considered it to be ineffective.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 September 2022 it outlined the resident’s concerns and explained that the new fan was installed following Fire Risk Assessment recommendations, and it apologised if it had not explained this previously. It explained that the fan could not be isolated as it required continuous power to activate a damper in the event of a fire. It arranged for the instructions to be sent to the resident and provided the model details for reference. It stated that the running cost would be around 0.5 pence per day (the same as before). In subsequent correspondence the landlord confirmed it did not consider the cost to be disproportionate.
6. The resident’s escalation request was logged on 14 September 2022. He restated his original dissatisfaction and reported that the ducting equipment was plastic, not metal, and queried if the rate of extraction could be adjusted.
7. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint the same day and investigated the resident’s queries with the manufacturer. It established that the fan was not adjustable and gave the extraction rate (80 m3/hour) if the humidistat was triggered by a shower or similar. It advised that the fan would reduce the spread of smoke between compartments to whatever duct was in place, regardless of construction (or material). It explained that fitting the fan to the plastic duct would therefore still reduce smoke transfer between properties and escape routes.
8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 4 October 2022 it addressed the resident’s concerns and explained the reason for the change in more detail. It said the old fan’s mechanism of action meant that, in the event of a fire, smoke would spread from a property to the rest of the building, posing a risk to all residents. In contrast, the new fan had a mechanism which triggered a damper to activate in the event of a fire, preventing smoke from being extracted to the rest of the building.
9. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the strength of the extraction compared to the old fan, but explained that this model was the only available one on the market which had the built in damper which would prove necessary in the event of a fire. It reiterated that the recommendation was made in a Fire Risk Assessment but said it would also research alternative models. It visited the resident on 19 October 2022 and found that the fan was in appropriate working order and advised him on how to report any issues in future.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the Ombudsman. He stated that it was not necessary for the fan to be on all the time and he had concerns that it was not effectively extracting odours or humidity.
11. The evidence suggests that, in August 2023, the fan was replaced (the circumstances of this are not clear). The landlord has advised that it intends to investigate this further to ensure that the approved fire-safe model remains in place or is reinstalled.

Assessment and findings

12. It is accepted that the original fan was in working order and was only replaced as a result of the Fire Risk Assessment which recommended an ‘upgraded’ model to meet fire safety requirements. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on, or determine, the efficacy of the new fan in comparison to the old, but to assess whether the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s concerns were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
13. In response to the resident’s reports about the new fan (at both stages 1 and 2 of the complaint process), the landlord was proactive in addressing the specific points he raised and attempting to allay his concerns. It provided comprehensive explanations regarding its decision making process and technical information about the new fan, including a copy of the manual for reference. It also sought expert advice to ensure that the resident’s concerns about functionality were not justified. This demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and made every effort to resolve it promptly.
14. The evidence provided to this investigation corroborates the landlord’s advice (via the qualified expert) regarding the material of the fan and its adherence to the requirements of the Fire Risk Assessment. Given the extent of the resident’s concerns and the importance of fire safety measures, it was appropriate and commendable for the landlord to have obtained this extra level of assurance and passed the information on to the resident.
15. The landlord has an essential duty to address remedial action to mitigate fire risk in its properties where there are 2 or more domestic residences, in line with the Fire Safety Act 2021 (the Act). The Act requires the landlord to reduce the risk of fire for the building and compliance is essential.
16. The landlord’s Fire Safety Policy states the actions it must take in the event of an assessor identifying a significant finding under a Fire Risk Assessment (as in this case). It must comply or risk breaching its statutory duty under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and its duty to comply with Government Guidance for fire safety in purpose built blocks (2011).
17. Having regard to the landlord’s overarching obligations to make improvements or make safe existing components to comply with the above legislation, it was reasonable for it to replace the existing extractor fan with one that met legal requirements. Once concerns were raised by the resident, the landlord took a proactive and resolution focused approach to address those concerns thoroughly. As a result, there was no maladministration by the landlord.
18. While the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction with the new fan is noted, he is encouraged to co-operate with the landlord to ensure that both its legal obligations, and his tenancy terms, are complied with.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to replace the resident’s extractor fan.

Reasons

20. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its expert and carry out remedial work in line with its statutory obligation to mitigate the identified fire risk under the Fire Risk Assessment. Once concerns were raised by the resident it provided a comprehensive and well-informed response to resolve the complaint.