Haringey London Borough Council (202202708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202708

Haringey Council

10 January 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 complainant 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:
   1. response to the complainant’s concerns regarding fire safety works at her property and communal building;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The complainant is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The complainant does not reside at the property, which is occupied by a subtenant. The property is a flat within a communal building.
3. On 21 May 2021, the landlord informed the complainant that as part of its fire safety obligations, it was proposing to carry out fire safety works. This included installing automatic fire detectors in communal areas, and interlinked fire detectors in the hallway of each individual property. These works were in accordance with recent fire risk assessment recommendations.
4. The complainant informed the landlord that there were a number of incorrect statements about the communal building in the fire risk assessment. She also sought clarification from the landlord about how the fire risk assessment had determined that her communal building had a risk rating of “substantial.” She further requested confirmation that the only works that would be carried out within her property would be the installation of a fire detector.
5. The landlord arranged a meeting with the residents of the communal building to discuss the works, however, the complainant advised that as she had not been consulted on the date of the meeting, she would be unable to attend. She therefore did not want the landlord to enter her property and she requested that it provide her an alternative date to attend a meeting to discuss the works.
6. The complainant made a formal complaint on 16 June 2021 as she had not received a response to her request. She also expressed concern that she had received a letter from the landlord’s contractor stating they needed access to carry out fire safety works following a survey. She disputed that any survey had been carried out. She reiterated that she would not allow access for any works until the landlord responded to her earlier request. She also raised concerns as part of her later complaint escalation that the landlord’s contractor had been contacting her subtenant, whereas she had requested it contact her directly.
7. In its response, the landlord apologised for its delay in communicating with the complainant. It advised that its contractor had written to the complainant at both the leasehold address and at her correspondence address, and that they had been given access to her property by her subtenant to carry out the fire safety survey. It had instructed its contractor to confirm any subsequent appointments directly with her going forward, and confirmed that she would be contacted via her email address. It also confirmed that the only work that would take place inside her property was the installation of fire detectors, and an alarm controller test unit in her hallway. It upheld her complaint in light of its failures.
8. The complainant then contacted this service as she was unhappy with how the landlord had carried out its fire risk assessment, and with how it had responded to her requests for information, in relation to the fire safety works. She advised that the outcome that she sought was for the fire risk assessment to be carried out correctly, and for new works to be based off a new correct fire risk assessment. The complainant subsequently advised this service that the landlord had now fitted the fire detectors within her property.

Assessment and findings

Fire safety works

9. As part of her complaint, the complainant raised concerns that the landlord’s fire safety assessment stated there were two points of entry into the communal building. The complainant noted this was incorrect, as the two properties in the basement of the communal building had separate entry points. It is not evident that the landlord has addressed this concern, which has left the complainant unclear about whether this would effect the assessment and safety of the building.
10. The complainant also requested for the landlord to clarify how it had determined that the level of risk in her communal building was “substantial.” In its response, the landlord explained it had reached this determination due to a combination of factors, without going into detail. This was a missed opportunity to fully articulate the outcome of the assessment and the factors it had considered.
11. The complainant also raised concerns that she had been unable to attend the meeting arranged by the landlord with the residents of the building. She noted that she had not been previously contacted about the meeting. It is not evident that the landlord investigated her concerns that she was not contacted. Although it may not be possible to arrange a meeting which suited the timetables of all residents, having been informed that the complainant was unable to attend, the landlord should have explored options to discuss with her the topics of the meetings, or to otherwise have explained why it was not required to do so. It did not do this, however.
12. While the complainant expressed to the landlord that she did not want its contractors to enter the property without her present, it is evident that she informed the landlord of this on 8 June 2021. The landlord has advised that its contractors first attended on 29 April 2021, and were granted access by the subtenant to carry out the survey. The landlord has also advised that it attempted to inform the complainant of this inspection by post to her correspondence address and to the property address. While it is not clear why the complainant did not receive the correspondence, this was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to provide prior notice. Given that the complainant did not receive the correspondence, it was also appropriate that the landlord committed to sending future correspondence by email.
13. It is also evident that following the complainant’s request that she be contacted directly in future, the landlord’s contractor contacted her subtenant instead. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord offered an apology for this contact in its stage two response, and that it advised its contractors had been instructed not to do so again.
14. As part of her complaint, the complainant also requested that the landlord confirm the scope of works to her property. The landlord clarified in its formal responses that the works would only include the installation of the fire detectors, and the necessary alarm controller test unit in her hallway. This was appropriate, as it managed the complainant’s expectations, and answered her question in the way that she sought.
15. In its formal responses, the landlord acknowledged that its contractors had contacted the complainant’s subtenant directly, for which it apologised. It subsequently took steps to address this concern going forward. It did not, however, address her concerns about the incorrect information in its assessment, nor did it explore the options to discuss her concerns given she had been unable to attend the residents meeting. In the circumstances, these failures amounted to service failure, for which an amount of £100 is appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
16. An order has also been made for the landlord to acknowledge the information provided by the complainant regarding the entry points to the communal building, and for it to provide its position on how this impacts its assessment. Additionally, the landlord is ordered to provide additional information as to how the determination of substantial risk was reached.

Complaints handling

17. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will acknowledge a formal complaint within two working days, and respond within 10.
18. Following the complainant’s formal complaint on 16 June 2021, she did not receive any response from the landlord until 30 June 2021. She had also not received any correspondence since having raised her concerns on 8 June 2021. Although the landlord did uphold the complainant’s complaint about its delays in responding to her communications, it gave no explanations for the delays. This would have left the complainant unclear about how her complaint would be addressed and caused her to expend time and trouble in chasing a response. In the circumstances, without a reasonable explanation for the delay, this amounted to service failure. An amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the complainant’s concerns regarding fire safety works at her property and communal building;
    2. complaints handling.

Orders

20. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £150, comprising:
    1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the complainant by its failure to address her concerns relating to the fire safety works;
    2. £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
21. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
22. The landlord is to write to the complainant within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
    1. acknowledge the information provided by the complainant regarding the entry points to the communal building, and provide its position on how this impacts its assessment;
    2. provide additional information as to how the determination of substantial risk was reached.