Wandsworth Council (202006209)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006209

Wandsworth Council

30 April 2021

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s proposed decision to install a particular type of sprinkler system in sheltered accommodation in the borough.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. In February 2020 the landlord sent a letter to its sheltered housing residents in the borough about the potential future installation of a fire suppression system in their properties. The resident was not sent a copy as he did not live in sheltered accommodation and the proposed works did not relate to his property, but was provided with a copy by a sheltered resident. The letter suggested that sheltered residents contact their content insurers on the basis that they may be eligible for insurance policy reductions as a result of the future installation of a particular type of fire suppression/sprinkler system in their properties.
5. On 4 March 2020 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on the basis that he considered it unacceptable that in this letter the landlord had advertised the purported benefits of this particular sprinkler system to its vulnerable residents without any substantial evidence in support. He noted that he had previously expressed his views about the landlord’s decision to, in future, install a sprinkler system which he considered to be inefficient compared to an alternative system that he had proposed and wished to install in his own property.
6. On 9 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident. It noted that the issue regarding the impact of sprinkler installation on insurance premiums had been considered and the landlord was content with the advice given to residents. It stated would be some years before sprinklers were installed in its high-rise blocks and the resident’s block would be very low priority in the event it would be included in a future programme given its design. On this basis, the landlord stated that if the resident were to install his own sprinkler/fire suppression system the landlord would not recharge him in the event that sprinklers were installed in his block, subject to the system being inspected at the time of installation to ensure it was functioning and fit for purpose.
7. On the same day, 9 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated, setting out that his aim with the complaint was to advocate for the local residents across the borough in terms of better fire safety practices and policies that met their needs. He acknowledged the landlord’s statement that it would not recharge him after the installation of his own fire suppression system but asked whether this applied to “everyone”.
8. On 23 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident. It noted that the resident did not represent any sheltered residents in his capacity as the complainant and was not in a position to comment with any authority on the landlord’s plans. It stated that it would take advice and undertake consultation with potentially affected residents on the correct sprinkler system to install when a timeframe for works was established.
9. On 24 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated, stating that he was concerned for the wellbeing of vulnerable residents in his residents association which was why he had raised the complaint.
10. On 3 July 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident. It noted that while the resident had made it clear that he disagreed with its position, he had been given a full and complete response as to why this decision was made. It noted that it would review all technical solutions available to it at the time of installation if it was in a position to install automatic fire suppression systems. It acknowledged that while its earlier letter to sheltered residents could have been better worded, it would be reasonable to assume that the installation of the system would have an impact on insurance premiums. As the fitting was not optional for sheltered schemes, the insurance premiums issue was not considered to be a significant factor in the decision-making process, though it would be addressed with consultation if necessary.
11. As of 9 March 2021, the landlord has communicated to the Ombudsman that there are no sprinkler installation works currently programmed for the resident’s property or the wider block. It noted that consultation with tenants and leaseholders at the block would be undertaken if any works were programmed in future. The resident has expressed concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord nevertheless may in future install a sprinkler system in his block for which he would be charged. He has stated that he would rather install his own system with an assurance that this would be approved by the landlord meaning that he was not paying for the installation of two separate systems.

Reasons

12. Paragraph 36 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’) sets out that the person complaining about the actions or omissions of a member landlord must be, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
13. Additionally, paragraph 39 (q) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not cause significant adverse effect to the complainant.
14. The letter which was the subject of the complaint raised by the resident was about works that were proposed to be undertaken at some point in the future in sheltered accommodation properties under the landlord’s control. The resident expressed some concern about the specifics of the proposed works, the content of the letter and the way the landlord communicated with the residents in sheltered accommodation whom he considered to be vulnerable. However, the letter was not addressed to the resident and the potential future installation works that were discussed in it were not ones that were being proposed for his property or block, given he did not live in sheltered accommodation.
15. As a result, the resident was not significantly adversely affected by the content of the letter in terms of his occupation of property, if at all. This is because the proposed works were not happening yet, were for other properties that he did not live in, and the discussions of possible similar works at his property in future were also hypothetical at that point. It is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
16. While the resident wanted to bring the complaint on behalf of others, the landlord explained he had no authority to do so and dealt with his concerns as an individual complaint. The Ombudsman is satisfied he was not acting as a representative when he complained to the landlord as there is no evidence that he had been given the authority to do so.
17. Additionally, the resident has requested a determination on whether residents can install a particular type of fire suppression system themselves without having to pay again in future if the landlord installs their own system in years to come. It is noted that the landlord agreed with the resident not to “double-charge” him for potential future installation work if it was able to approve/validate his system once it was installed. Given this was not considered by the landlord at the final stage of the complaint process but was instead simply raised as a query about possible future actions that the landlord has addressed in a reasonable manner, this is not something that the Ombudsman will consider further.