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

Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202222709)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222709

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 May 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 leaseholder 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s complaint that it:
    1. Obtained his consent to inspect his flat without declaring its intentions.
    2. Used and shared his personal information inappropriately.
    3. Did not fulfil commitments it made to address the findings in its fire inspection of his flat.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Used and shared his personal information inappropriately

  1. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  2. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is responsible for complaints about the manner in which an organisation has handled personal information. It is not wholly clear if the information the leaseholder is concerned about (alterations made inside his flat) is considered personal information. Nonetheless, that is the nature of his complaint, and the ICO is the appropriate organisation to consider it. Because of that, this aspect of the leaseholder’s complaint is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate. The leaseholder should contact the ICO to discuss his concerns in regard to this issue. The ICO’s contact information can be found on its website.

Background and summary of events

  1. The leaseholder hold his lease from the landlord (a Council). He sub-leases his flat back to the Council’s temporary accommodation team.
  2. In December 2022 the landlord emailed the leaseholder explaining that it had been asked by the tenant in his flat to conduct a fire safety inspection. It asked for the leaseholder’s permission to do so, and provided a pamphlet explaining what the inspection entailed. Its email stated “We can fit any missing or required smoke detectors and where or if required, replace the kitchen and or front door with a fire door (based on a Planned programme of works).”
  3. The inspection went ahead in January 2023. Amongst its observations it noted that there had been alterations to the property, which may not have had landlord consent. The landlord sent a follow up email to the leaseholder explaining that following the inspection it would replace the kitchen/lounge door with a fire door, and install fire detection equipment.
  4. The leaseholder has explained that the landlord contacted him in March 2022, telling him that in light of feedback from the fire safety inspection it was investigating the alterations he had made to the flat.
  5. The leaseholder made a retrospective request for permission for the alterations in May 2022, which the landlord declined in June. In its decision it ordered the leaseholder to undertake a wide range of remedial work to bring the property to an appropriate condition. He appealed the decision, the landlord provided its final decision in August. It did not uphold his appeal.
  6. Following his unsuccessful appeal the leaseholder corresponded with the landlord, disputing its decisions, and the grounds on which the original fire safety inspection had been conducted. He said the inspection information had been obtained without his consent, and had been shared inappropriately. He also said that because the landlord had not provided any timescales in which it would replace his internal fire door, and in fact had told him and the Council that it could be months or years, he had had to commission the work himself, at significant cost.
  7. Correspondence between the leaseholder and landlord continued until it sent him a detailed final response to his concerns in October 2022. In its various responses the landlord explained how and why the inspection had been conducted. It explained how layout alterations could potentially be potential fire risk and why it had been appropriate to document them and inform the relevant departments. It also responded to his concern that he had had to replace the lounge/kitchen door himself, saying that it understood he had agreed to do so in order to comply with his lease requirements in relation to his arrangement with the temporary accommodation team.
  8. The leaseholder approached the Ombudsman in January 2023. We passed his concerns to the landlord and asked it to treat them as a formal complaint. It responded to him in late January. In its complaint response it explained that the leaseholder’s grounds for complaint were the same as he had raised with it in 2022 following his appeal. It said it had reviewed the information provided to him previously and concluded it was correct and appropriate.
  9. The leaseholder escalated his complaint, telling the landlord that he did not believe it had addressed his concerns. The landlord sent its final complaint response in late February 2022. It explained that it did not believe there was anything more it could add to its previous responses.
  10. The leaseholder remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In support of his complaint to the Ombudsman the leaseholder has provided supporting information about his retrospective application to make alterations in his home, and the grounds for his ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decisions. However, while the declined application was an aspect of the leaseholder’s overall concerns, the specific issues he included in his escalated complaint of 1 February 2023 were as set out in paragraph 1. The Ombudsman can only investigation complaint issues which have been addressed by a landlord as part of its complaint process. Accordingly, this investigation does not consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s decision on his application.

Obtained consent to inspect flat without declaring intentions

  1. In his complaint to the landlord the leaseholder explained he believed that “Misleading and misinformation were deliberately given to me by Fire Safety Team in order to obtain my voluntary consent to inspect my property.” In response, the landlord said that the information gathered in the inspection had been in relation to fire risks only, which it was required to share with its relevant teams. It explained that the change of room use, and converting the flat from one bedroom to two, along with incorrectly positioned carbon monoxide detectors, were major changes in relation to fire safety which needed to be notified to the relevant teams.
  2. The leaseholder complained that misleading information was given to him about the inspection. No evidence has been seen supporting that allegation. The evidence provided for this investigation by the leaseholder and landlord show the specific correspondence with him about the inspection, and the inspection form. The correspondence clearly explains the nature of the inspection was fire safety, and supporting information was provided to him stating the same thing. The form is labelled as a fire safety form, and asks questions about many aspects of the property. These include fire alarms, external and internal doors, windows, and building alterations. Given that there had been internal alterations, it was relevant to note them in the form.
  3. The landlord’s exact procedures following a fire safety inspection have not been provided. Nonetheless, it would seem appropriate and predictable that the information gathered would be passed on to whichever teams had a need for it. The landlord’s alterations application form specifically states that a license is needed for works which alter the internal layout, and that this is because of the potential fire risk. Accordingly, there was a clear link between internal alterations and fire safety, and an appropriate reason for the landlord to use the information from the inspection.
  4. Overall, nothing in the evidence seen here supports the complaint that the fire safety inspection was for anything but the stated purpose. The inspection noted issues relevant to fire safety, and that information was used by the landlord for the appropriate purpose of resolving his unapproved alterations, which, as identified in its alterations process, posed a potential fire risk. The landlord’s actions and explanations to the leaseholder were therefore reasonable.

Did not fulfil commitments it made to address the findings in its fire inspection of his flat

  1. This aspect of the leaseholder’s complaint is related to his commercial relationship with the Council, rather than his own occupation of the property for residential purposes. In line with the Scheme, that would potentially make it outside the Ombudsman’s remit. Nonetheless, discretion has been used in this particular case to investigate the matter.
  2. The landlord said in its original email to the leaseholder about the fire inspection that it could replace an internal kitchen door with an appropriate fire door. It also explained this would be based on a planned programme of works. After informing the leaseholder that the inspection had shown the need for his kitchen/lounge door to be replaced with a fire door and the installation of fire detection equipment it said again that it would undertake this work.
  3. The Council’s temporary accommodation team told the leaseholder that the work identified in the inspection needed to be completed in order to meet its standards. The leaseholder has explained that he made enquiries of the landlord, but it could not give a specific timescale for the work, and indicated it could be a long time. He then undertook the work himself in order to meet the temporary accommodation standards. He complained that the landlord had not fulfilled its commitment to do the work.
  4. The landlord’s response to this complaint is not wholly clear, but indicates that it had been informed the leaseholder had done the work himself. That was true, but did not address the complaint as clearly as it could have. The landlord’s original email about the inspection explained the work would be part of a programme. By their nature, such programmed works are large scale undertakings, planned months or years in advance, in which a landlord will undertake repair or renewal work on a number of its properties with similar needs. Accordingly, while it is clear the landlord said it would do the necessary work, no evidence has been shown that it gave commitments as to when that would be done, and the information it provided originally showed the work would not be done immediately. Likewise, no evidence has been presented suggesting that the landlord would not have fulfilled its offer in the fullness of time.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to the leaseholder’s complaint that it:
    1. Obtained his consent to inspect his flat without declaring its intentions.
    2. Did not fulfil commitments it made to address the findings in its fire inspection of his flat.

Reasons

  1. No evidence has been seen suggesting that the landlord mislead or misadvised the leaseholder about the purpose of its fire inspection, and the issues identified in the inspection were relevant to fire safety. Because of that, the landlord’s response to the complaint were reasonable.
  2. No evidence has been seen suggesting that the landlord committed to complete the work identified in the fire inspection in any specific timeframe.