London Borough of Lewisham (202409565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409565

Lewisham Council

25 February 2025

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 handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen fire door.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a maisonette. She lives in the property with her young daughter.
4. The landlord raised a work order on 17 November 2022 to inspect the kitchen door as the resident had reported it was not a fire door.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 30 March 2023. She said the landlord inspected the kitchen door in February 2023 and confirmed it was not the correct measurements for a fire door. She said the landlord had not made an appointment to resolve the matter or provided any updates. She said the door was unsafe as it was not fire compliant and she wanted the landlord to replace it.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. It apologised that the resident had to chase the repairs. It said a contractor attended on 18 January 2023 and was unsure whether the door was fire compliant so referred the matter to a supervisor. There was subsequently a delay due to an admin error. A supervisor would attend on 28 April 2023 to assess whether the door was fire compliant. It would then arrange an appointment if it needed to replace it.
7. A contractor attended on 28 April 2023 and confirmed the kitchen door was not a fire door. On 5 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord how to progress the matter as it had not confirmed the next steps. The resident then escalated the complaint on 21 September 2023. She said the landlord had failed to attend several appointments and there was a delay in ordering the fire door. She was concerned for her family’s safety, particularly as her neighbour regularly burns items and sets the fire alarms off. She said that the landlord’s website recognises that fire is a main cause of death and notes the importance of safety, but it had failed to take her concerns seriously. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor communication and lack of action to replace the door.
8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 9 November 2023, it apologised for the delay in installing the fire door. It had inspected the door 4 times but had not completed the works. A contractor would contact her by 10 November 2023 to arrange an inspection and then would fit the door. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in completing the works. It also acknowledged there was a delay in recognising the complaint escalation.
9. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 3 on 13 November 2023 as the landlord had not contacted her regarding the door replacement. The landlord’s independent adjudicator issued the stage 3 response on 11 December 2023 and agreed that it took too long to fit the fire door which caused avoidable distress to the resident. The response set out the following actions the landlord should complete to put right the issue: 
   1. Pay the resident a further £100 compensation.
   2. Prioritise fitting the fire door.
   3. Inspect all the doors in the block to ensure they meet the correct standard.
   4. Review the void property checklist to ensure an appropriately qualified person checks the kitchen door meets the correct standard and ensure it resolves any issues before the property is occupied.
   5. Review the case to establish whether the delay was human error or systemic failure and make any appropriate procedural changes.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 June 2024 as it had not completed the necessary follow-on work after it installed the door. She had also not received the compensation. She further chased the matter on 9 October 2024 and said the door does not close correctly. The resident referred her complaint to the Service due to the outstanding issues as she remained concerned that there was a fire safety risk.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen fire door.

11. The landlord’s lettable standard states that properties will have a 30-minute fire-resistant door to the kitchen. Its repair policy states that its lettable standard sets out the minimum standards and repair condition that tenants can expect from their property at the point of let. Further to this, the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) recognises that properly constructed/fitted internal doors with self-closers are a preventative measure for reducing the impact of fire. The landlord therefore should have ensured the property adhered to this standard during the void process.
12. The resident raised concerns on 17 November 2022 that the kitchen door was not a fire door. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete urgent repairs within 3 working days, which it considers as work where there is a possible health or safety risk. It will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Due to the potential safety risk of the kitchen not having a fire door, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed the repair matter and confirmed to the resident how it classed the repair, but there is no evidence that it did. The landlord attended on 18 January 2023. Regardless of the repair classification, the landlord did not adhere to its repair timeframe as it took 41 working days to attend. This was an unreasonable delay.
13. The contractor was unable to confirm whether the kitchen door was fire safety compliant during the initial visit. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that a suitably qualified contractor attended to promptly determine whether the door was a fire door. This would have prevented further delays and additional appointments and limited the impact on the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord should have ensured that it promptly arranged a follow-on appointment to assess the door.
14. The resident raised a complaint on 30 March 2023 as the landlord had not made a further appointment or provided an update despite the fact she had called numerous times. The landlord raised a work order the following day to inspect the door. In its stage 1 response it said that it had failed to progress the matter due to an admin error. While it is recognised that the delay may have been caused by human error, the landlord should ensure that it has appropriate systems in place to identify where further works are needed.
15. The contractor identified on 28 April 2023 that the door was not a fire door. The landlord therefore should have promptly arranged to replace it. A contractor attended on 21 June 2023 and noted that the required materials would arrive in 2 weeks, so booked a follow-on appointment for 19 July 2023. There were further appointments on 19 July 2023 and 21 September 2023 which noted the works required a fire door which it had ordered. It was inappropriate that the landlord attended several follow-on appointments without confirming whether the door was available to install. There also is no evidence that the landlord provided any clear reasons for the delay, which is of concern as it clearly set the resident’s expectations that it would install the door on 19 July 2023. As a result, the resident incurred additional time and trouble providing access for the appointments and chasing the works.
16. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would contact the resident to arrange an inspection by 10 November 2023 and would then complete the work. It seems to be unreasonable that it required a further inspection, particularly as the response acknowledged it had already inspected 4 times and not carried out the works. The landlord did not explain why it had determined another inspection was required. It subsequently failed to call the resident within the timeframe, so the resident escalated the complaint on 13 November 2023. The landlord therefore missed a further opportunity to meet the resident’s expectations.
17. The landlord told the Service it installed the door on 25 January 2024. It therefore took over 14 months to complete the works after the resident initially reported it was not a fire door. This was an entirely unreasonable delay. It is evident the issue has cause significant distress to the resident, due to her safety concerns. It is of particular concern that she told the landlord that her neighbour “consistently sets fires and causes fire alarms in other properties to go off for a while in the night”. Due to this, the landlord should have ensured it handled the matter as a priority, which it failed to do.
18. The landlord did not have record of the completion date within its repair records. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. However, in this case as the contractor was able to confirm the completion date, the lack of records did not have a detrimental impact on the investigation into the resident’s complaint.
19. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs may fall outside of its timeframe if follow-on work or inspections are required, or it needs to order specialist materials. In this case, some of the delays may have been understandable as the landlord needed to inspect the original door and then order the fire door. However, this does not account for the full length of the delays. The landlord failed to reasonably progress the repair when the resident initially reported the issues, and it failed to take a “right first time” approach when inspecting the door and raising the required follow-on works. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the expected timeframe for the works, particularly in relation to the anticipated delivery time of the door.
20. Following the completion of the complaint, the resident raised additional concerns that the fire door does not close properly. Although this was not part of the original complaint, the landlord should have put in place a full and lasting repair as part of its commitment to install the fire door in its complaint responses. On 7 June 2024, the resident asked the landlord when the contractors would return to finish the door frame. She said the contractors said they would reattend to complete the work, but she had not been contacted. As the landlord did not have appropriate records to be aware that follow-on works were required, the onus was placed on the resident to pursue the works, which caused her additional time and effort.
21. The landlord initially acted appropriately when it was notified of the outstanding works as it attended on 10 June 2024 to make good the door, which included filling and painting it. However, the resident has continued to report that the door still does not close properly, which she told the Service remains an outstanding issue. She also said a strip has repeatedly fallen off the door.
22. The London Fire Brigade’s website advises residents to check fire doors close “firmly onto the latch without sticking on the floor or the frame” and that the seals are intact. It states “A fire door only works when it’s closed. A fire door is completely useless if it’s wedged open or can’t close fully”. It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord has not reattended to assess the condition of the door as based on the resident’s report it is likely not fit for purpose. The landlord therefore must complete a further inspection of the door and any recommended repairs to ensure the door is fire compliant.
23. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 3 as it recognised the delays in installing the fire door and it offered £200 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
24. While the compensation offered somewhat redressed the matter, it is not proportionate to the length of the delays and that further works to ensure the door closes remain outstanding. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, an additional £200 compensation is warranted as the failure adversely affected the resident and the landlord attempted to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the detriment to the resident and the failings identified.
25. In this investigation, failures have also been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further orders for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
26. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 and 3 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord exceeded its response timeframe at stage 1 by 6 working days and by 15 working days at stage 2. The landlord recognised the delay at stage 2 but did not take any steps to redress the matter. The issue therefore remains unresolved.
28. It is also of concern that the landlord failed to pay the resident the compensation offered during the complaint process. The Service’s complaint handling code states that “Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. It was therefore inappropriate that it failed to pay the compensation as promised. The resident chased the compensation on 9 October 2024 and there is no evidence that the landlord responded. She therefore incurred additional unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the resolution that the landlord proposed to remedy the complaint.
29. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, £50 compensation is warranted as there was a minor failure by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put things right.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen fire door. 
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. In addition to the £200 compensation already offered the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £200 for its failings in handling the works to the fire door. 
    2. £50 for the complaint handling failures.
33. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service of the total payment of £450.
34. The landlord must inspect the kitchen door and complete any necessary repairs to ensure it is fire compliant and it can properly close. It must provide a copy of a post inspection to confirm the fire door meets the required standards. 
35. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

36. If it has not done so already, the landlord should adhere to the recommendations made by the stage 3 adjudicator to review the voids process to ensure fire doors meet the correct standards and review the case to make appropriate procedural changes to prevent a recurrence of the delays.