Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202304823)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304823

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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;
    1. The landlord’s request for the resident to remove the security gate from her front door.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about poor staff conduct.
    3. The associated complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat located on the first floor of the building. The resident has said that she suffers from significant mental health issues and is a domestic abuse survivor. Due to past safety concerns associated with domestic abuse, the resident has advised that she had a long standing agreement with the landlord that she was able to have a security gate on her front door.
  2. Following a fire risk assessment taking place in the building, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 November 2022 and said that it was not aware of a prior agreement about a security gate. It advised that she would need to remove the gate due to the risks that it posed should a fire happen. However, it advised that it intended to fit a ‘Secure by Design’ fire door at the property.
  3. On 8 November 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she felt insulted that the landlord had no record of the prior agreement, and she did not feel that the agreement should change. The resident said that the landlord had previously determined that fitting a new door was not possible. Therefore, the security gate was the only measure to keep the resident and her family safe.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 November 2022, and raised a complaint regarding her Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO). She said that his approach amounted to harassment, and he had threatened her regarding removing the gate. The resident also said that the NRO had lied by claiming that the resident already had a ‘Secure by Design’ fire door.
  5. On 17 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage one response. It said that the gate was a fire hazard and needed to be removed. However, the landlord’s fire safety manager would work with the resident to facilitate the removal. The landlord apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint as she did not believe that the landlord had appropriately acknowledged the risks posed to her and her family, should the gate be removed, despite providing the NRO with a letter explaining her circumstances. She also said that the NRO’s actions had triggered severe anxiety due to her previous experience of domestic violence.
  7. On 10 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage two response. The landlord explained that the removal of the safety gate was non-negotiable and if the resident failed to remove the gate, the landlord would need to consider formal enforcement action. It said that it recognised the resident’s preference to add further security to the property, but the landlord could not overlook the significant safety risks that the gate posed in the event of a fire. The landlord reassured the resident that while a new door may not have been possible in 2018, products had changed since then, and it requested that the resident allowed its contractor to review whether a new security fire door could be installed.
  8. The landlord also said that the resident’s vulnerabilities were appropriately recorded and considered by landlord staff. It also stated that it had records of the resident experiencing domestic abuse and that it would ensure the relevant specialist team would contact her to discuss her current concerns.
  9. The resident remains dissatisfied because she does not believe that the landlord is considering her circumstances and vulnerabilities in its decision making. The resident said she is outraged at the poor service she has received from the landlord, and the quality of her life is being disrupted as a result of the landlords actions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s request for the resident to remove the security gate from her front door.

  1. In 2011, the government published a guide for fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats. The guide says that the possible conflict between security and fire safety must be taken into account. Any measures taken to restrict access must not prevent people escaping easily in a fire. Residents should be encouraged to make their homes secure and may take their own measures, including fitting additional locks to front doors and installing intruder alarm systems. However, again, care is needed to ensure that any measures taken do not conflict with the need to escape in the event of fire.
  2. The landlord also operates a fire safety management policy, that specifically addresses issues with security gates and grilles. The policy states that the installation of security gates and grilles present a life risk situation for residents in the event of a fire or a medical emergency inside the home. A gate or grille may not allow immediate escape or access to the property by emergency services. The policy specifically outlines the following risks that they pose;
    1. The resident may be locked / trapped inside the property as gates are secured with locking mechanisms with no simple single forms of fastening.
    2. The Fire Service would need to open the metal gate or grill with specialist tools therefore firefighting and rescue would be significantly delayed.
    3. The security gate/grille, when opened, could impede the means of escape for other residents obstructing the escape route.
  3. The policy is supported by an unauthorised improvements procedure, that states that any prior permissions given by the landlord for the resident to have a security gate/grille would be withdrawn and the gate would be removed, with the resident receiving written notice advising this. However, the policy and procedure outlines that where domestic abuse has been highlighted by the resident and external agencies as a significant concern, the landlord’s fire safety team would review those risks and reach a conclusion that would not pose a fire risk or endanger the resident.
  4. The resident maintained that she had prior agreement with the landlord to have a security gate, however this Service has not seen any evidence of this agreement. Nevertheless, this Service has reviewed historical correspondence where the resident explained the reasons for the gate being fitted. There is no evidence that this was challenged by the landlord before the fire risk assessment, so it is understandable that the resident is unhappy and frustrated by the request to remove it.
  5. Regardless, in line with its policy and procedure, the resident is required to remove the gate at the landlord’s request. The landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the gate would need to be removed, and outlined its reasons for the removal, which was reasonable. The landlord also offered to discuss an acceptable alternative with the resident, namely fitting a ‘Secure by Design’ security fire door, which was appropriate to ensure that her safety would not be compromised.
  6. The resident had raised concerns regarding domestic abuse. This Service has seen evidence from the landlord that in exceptional circumstances, and in conjunction with the police and support agencies, it could review its decision regarding the removal of a security gate. While there is no doubt that the decision for a security gate to remain on a property would be rare, it is evidently not a non-negotiable conclusion as the stage two response said.
  7. That being said, there is no evidence of the police or external support agencies sharing information with the landlord to suggest that the resident was currently at significant risk of harm due to domestic abuse. The landlord has confirmed with this Service that it had not received any reports of domestic abuse by, or on behalf of the resident, since her tenancy commenced in 2002. Given the lack of reports or supporting information from the police, it is reasonable that the landlord did not identify the resident’s case to be an exceptional case that would override the landlord’s fire safety commitments.
  8. The landlord said it would ask its specialist team to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing domestic abuse concerns. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take and demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns into consideration.
  9. This Service has noted that a significant amount of time passed from when the landlord obtained the recommendations of the fire risk assessment to when it contacted the resident about removing the gate. While not necessarily a service failure, the landlord should have acted more promptly given the risks that the landlord has raised that the gate poses. The landlord may wish to reflect on this and ensure that any recommendations made following fire risk assessments are acted upon quickly to reduce any potential risks.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s explanations and rationale regarding removing the security gate were appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures regarding fire safety. The landlord offered to fit a security fire door, which was the appropriate course of action. The landlord has provided clear reasons for its request and has considered and responded to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s request, and handling of the matter was reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about poor staff conduct.

  1. The Ombudsman’s role when investigating complaints is to assess the evidence that is available and reach a conclusion as to whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations in its response to the complaint. This investigation understands that the resident felt that the NRO had threatened and targeted her, causing her alarm and distress. The Ombudsman has assessed how the landlord investigated the matter and whether its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. Upon receiving reports of poor staff conduct, it is the landlord’s role to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and collect evidence from staff members and the resident to determine what events had taken place. In this instance, the landlord said in its stage two response that it had interviewed the NRO and concluded that it was satisfied that he had behaved professionally and worked in accordance with policy and procedure.
  3. However, this Service would expect to see evidence of the landlord’s interview with the NRO so each parties version of events were appropriately documented. The landlord has not provided this evidence, which is inappropriate. Furthermore, the landlord could have asked the resident for evidence to support her claims, and considered any evidence before concluding that the NRO had behaved professionally. Its failure to do so was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint regarding the NRO’s conduct was inadequate. It failed to provide a specific response to the resident’s claims that the NRO had threatened and harassed her. Therefore, there has been a service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report about poor staff conduct.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The CHC specifies that a stage one complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage two complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
  3. From 17 June 2022, the landlord implemented an interim complaints policy, following a cyber security incident that impacted the landlord’s internal systems. The landlord’s website states that from April 2024, a new complaints policy will be implemented that brings its response timescales in line with the CHC. For the purpose of this report, the reasonableness of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint will be assessed using the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
  4. The policy outlines a two stage procedure. On receiving a formal complaint, the landlord aims to acknowledge and log at stage one within 10 working days. It aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they may request a peer review. On request for a peer review (stage two), the landlord aims to log and acknowledge within 10 working days and to provide its stage two in 40 working days.
  5. The landlord received the resident’s initial complaint on 11 November 2022, with the resident making a further complaint on 20 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 January 2023; 44 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This is significantly beyond the timescales expected and was therefore inappropriate. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failure. This was reasonable.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 January 2023. The landlord issued its stage two response on 10 March 2023; 38 working days after the escalation. This was within the timescales outlined within its interim complaints policy and therefore appropriate.
  7. The compensation award for its complaint handling failures was in line with the suggested award in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests an award of between £50 to £100 where there has been service failure. The landlord put things right in respect of its complaint handling failures and its offer of compensation adequately reflected the detriment caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s request for the resident to remove the security gate from her front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about poor staff conduct.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, with respect to its associated complaint handling, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £50 compensation for the failings identified with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about poor staff conduct.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £100 compensation as offered in its stage one complaint response.