Luton Borough Council (202343510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343510

Luton Borough Council

31 October 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas and the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupied his flat under a secure tenancy. The flat was situated on the 7th floor of a 15-floor block of flats. He reported to this Service that he was diagnosed with ADHD and autism. The landlord had recorded him as “vulnerable” but without a proper description.
4. On 16 June 2023, the landlord had upheld a complaint by the resident about the standard of the flooring that had been recently laid. Due to heavy traffic the flooring was getting stained which was not sustainable. The contractor should have consulted with the landlord and with tenants to establish what type of flooring should have been suitable rather than the contractor choose the flooring. The resolution was that it would consult with residents to identify suitable flooring to replace the existing flooring in the communal area. The resident informed this Service on 29 October 2024 that the contractor or landlord only consulted about the colour. It fitted replacement flooring. According to the resident, it fitted the same quality flooring as before and the resident was told that it was flooring used for wet rooms.
5. On 31 January 2024, the resident made a complaint as follows:
   1. The complaint was about the overall cleanliness and safety of his block which he had reported a number of times. He stated that “the overall cleanliness and safety of the building is appalling. Nothing is up to standard. Nothing is kept clean. Nothing is safe”.
   2. The issues included faulty flooring, damaged wiring, cracked walls and “major flooring damage”, damage to the car park railings, exposed pipes and wiring, sharp, broken objects, and faded parking markings.
   3. He attached photos of the wiring, scuffed and damaged lino flooring, marked window paint, a dirty window, pit marks in paint, and torn signs.
   4. He suggested the landlord arrange a major deep clean by a professional deep cleaning company.
6. On 31 January 2024, the landlord responded with its Stage 1 response as follows:
   1. It had carried out an inspection on 23 January 2024, together with the resident. It invited the resident to identify any current cleaning issues.
   2. The block was inspected daily by the concierge officer.
   3. All the fire doors including the main exit doors were in working order.
   4. The missing tile, damage to the floor in the staircase area and damaged railing in the car park had been reported and were to be repaired within the following 30 days.
   5. The exposed telephony cables in the bin chute rooms belonged to a telephone internet provider. It had reported this to them.
   6. The paintwork on floors had since been painted.
   7. The painting of the 14th floor was following a fire on that floor.
   8. Painting of the blocks was normally done in a cyclical programme, however touch up of paint was done if there is any damage such as vandalism or an accident.
   9. Missing door stoppers were being installed.
   10. The decision to lock the covers to water pipes was to mitigate any potential risks and for the safety of all residents and to avoid any vandalism.
   11. It explained the process in case the resident needed to shut off the water in an emergency.
   12. In view of his complaint, it had put in place further monitoring processes.
7. On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint on the following basis:
   1. He was unable to list each and every issue as the “whole block (was) dirty”.
   2. He was expecting a professional deep cleaning team to be arranged.
   3. He had no concerns regarding fire safety.
   4. His concerns were regarding broken and damaged flooring that was a trip hazard, exposed cables and electrical equipment, unsuitable flooring tiles and not having access to his own emergency water stop valve.
   5. The concierge officer was not “professionally qualified”.
8. On 28 February 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response under its complaint process as follows:
   1. At the inspection of 23 January 2024, the resident did not identify any current cleaning issues.
   2. Some parts of the communal areas i.e. flooring and doors had tyre marks from bikes, shoes etc and “could benefit from a deep clean”.
   3. The specified areas had been painted.
   4. The damaged railing in the car park was due to be repaired by 1 March 2024.
   5. A new cleaning company would be taking over the cleaning of the block from 1 March 2024 and would carry out a deep clean.
   6. It would update him by 15 March 2024, including about the exposed telephony cables as the provider had not yet responded.
   7. It would be carrying out patch repairs matched to existing flooring by the end of March 2024.
   8. There were ongoing works in the car park. Its street cleansing team currently swept the car park and would continue to do so. Road markings would be looked at once the external works were completed.
   9. The block was on a decorating programme and this would be carried out in 2025/2026. Minor repairs would be carried out in the meantime.
   10. It asked for evidence that the concierge officer was not professionally trained or qualified to be able to understand different housing, safety regulations and needs.
9. The resident replied on the same day that he was “extremely disappointed” with the level of service provided as no action was being taken on a majority of the issues that had been raised. The job listing for the role of concierge stated no expertise was needed and no training regarding housing needs and housing services would be provided. No qualifications other than basic English and maths were requested. He said that the entire block needed cleaning.
10. On 1 March 2024, the landlord wrote asking where the resident obtained his evidence of the job listing. It requested a list of areas that required cleaning in order to look at a resolution.

Assessment and findings

The cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas and car park.

11. The landlord provided extracts of its estate inspection check lists for October and November 2023 and from the end of January 2024 to most of August 2024, although April 2024 only in part. It was not clear why there were reports missing. However, the reports in March 2024 onwards seem to be almost daily. Those check lists identified issues including trip hazards, graffiti, cracked glass and issues with the door stops.
12. The landlord’s repair records included:
    1. Fitting double glazing unit to the front door 3 weeks after the repair, front and rear doors adjusted 6 days after a report of 24 February 2023, repairing a jammed door 3 weeks after a report of February 2023, flooring was repaired within 2 months of a report in March 2023 and 2 weeks of a report in July 2023. The landlord boarded up cracked glass 5 days after a report on 5 July 2023 but did not replace it until March 2024. Skirting reported 4 January 2023 was not repaired until 15 February 2024 and holes in the paint/plastering were filled nearly 2 months after a report made on 21 November 2023, a month after a report in December 2023 and a few days after a report in May 2024.
    2. On 9 November 2023, a report of a hole made by a fire door was attended to 5 March 2024. On 19 December 2023, the landlord attended following a report by the concierge on that day and noted that the threshold to a fire door had been ripped out which required a bricklayer to fill as it was a trip hazard. The outcome was not noted. Repairs to door handles were carried out within days of the report.
13. Nearly all the reports had been made by the concierge. This demonstrated that the landlord inspected the premises on an almost daily basis and the concierge made any reports needed. The evidence showed there were issues that the concierge reported that were beyond the issues on the checklists which was reasonable. However, it was difficult to understand the correlation between the check lists and the repair records and how the landlord, or its contractors, actioned the concierge’s reports in every case.
14. It is noted that, while there was some correlation between the urgency of a repair and the speed with which it was carried out (such as cracked glass as opposed to small redecoration), some of the timescales appeared to be erratic. The landlord did not have an estates policy or a related policy regarding repairs in communal areas. It relied on its tenancy handbook which only referred to the concierge undertaking inspections as follows: “identify repairs that need to be done in shared areas, make sure there are no health and safety issues, generally make sure that the area is being looked after and cleaned to a satisfactory standard”. A policy and procedure would provide a standard against which it could measure itself. They would provide transparency and set out what residents could expect. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord introduces a procedure and a policy with standards for estate and communal repairs and to publish its service standards with its contractor.
15. According to an internal email of 10 May 2024, the wiring belonged to 2 different telephony providers. Also, according to that email, one of the telephony companies had attended and the wires were to be “tidied up”. While the loose wires were not the landlord’s responsibility, and it was reasonable not to interfere with the wiring itself, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to contact the telephony providers. While it reasonably did so, there was no evidence that the landlord had done so before the resident contacted it even though they were situated in the common parts and were reported by the concierge. The landlord informed this service that it did not have a record of its correspondence with the providers, which is concerning. The wires were unsightly, however there was no evidence that they were a risk due to their position. They had not been noted in the fire assessment of June 2023 and the works required was to tidy them up. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not check and/or reassure the resident in that regard.
16. On 31 March 2024, the landlord discussed internally that it would be boxing the wires up. This is an action that it could have taken some months previously. It is noted that bare wires were reported intermittently on the inspection report check lists. This was not consistent with the evidence which showed that the exposed wires were not boxed in. The Ombudsman cannot speculate on the reason for this inconsistency but the landlord should take note. The resident reported to us on 24 July 2024 that the wires were still exposed and some were “sparking”. While the landlord was largely reliant on two third parties to tidy the wires, there has been an unreasonable delay in boxing them up.
17. The landlord did not provide the resident’s previous reports for this investigation however the Ombudsman accepts they were made and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Given the internal reports, the evidence indicated that the landlord was taking some action. Given the timing, it had already decided to seek an alternative cleaning contractor. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to carry out a deep clean and had proactively changed cleaning contractor. However, the resident reported that he had made several reports, and in relation to the exposed wirings, over the last 10 years. It is noted that the landlord decided on a deep clean and contacted the telephony companies as a result of the resident’s complaint. While it is positive the landlord responded to the complaint, it is not satisfactory that the landlord had not been proactive. On 24 July 2024, the resident informed us that the cleaning had improved, which showed the landlord had affected an improvement, but only in part.
18. According to the complaint response, the works to the car park were “underway”. On 24 July 2024, the resident informed us that, while some works had been carried out for example a wooden fence was repaired, the works to the car park, including potholes and damage, including to a metal fence,  were still outstanding. This was confirmed by the landlord who informed us in October 2024 that it had no timescales for completion. This was unsatisfactory and the landlord should update the resident with an explanation why works are not being carried out and an approximate timescale and update.
19. The resident also reported to this Service that issues such as trip hazards in the building and fire doors not closing were outstanding.  Whether the latter issues were the same or new, this would have been frustrating for the resident as it did not demonstrate an overall improvement.
20. There were issues with the flooring despite it having been fitted not long before the resident’s complaint of January 2024. This indicated that the flooring was still not “sustainable” for heavy traffic. The Stage 2 letter of 16 June 2023 gave the clear impression that the landlord would look at the quality of the flooring, not just the colour. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry through its assurances. It was unsatisfactory that the flooring appeared to have deteriorated in a short space of time after its replacement and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard. 
21. While the issues did not affect the resident’s own home, the environment in which a person lives is important, as it contributes to their well-being. A landlord should also set a standard of care. While the actions the landlord took in response to the resident’s complaint, such as undertaking a deep clean and an inspection with the landlord present were positive, the repair timescales were often erratic, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the wires or box them as promised and either the landlord did not provide any timescales or did not fulfil timescales when provided. This meant the resident did not have any indication as to what to expect, or when. This would be frustrating in any event, but more so for the resident, given his autism. Moreover, his only alternative was to make multiple reports which was also frustrating for him. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Fire safety.

22. The resident’s complaint focussed on the safety of the building in terms of trip hazards, sharp, broken objects and loose wires. The landlord responded in its complaints and referred to fire safety. Its response was to set out at Stage 1 that “all fire doors including the main exit doors were in working order and working how they should be”. The resident’s request to escalate his complaint focussed on the cleanliness of the building and specifically stated it was not about fire safety.
23. At Stage 2, the landlord stated that it carried out annual fire safety assessments. It was reasonable that the landlord widened its answer. However, given that fire safety was not part of the resident’s complaint, it would not be fair to make determinations on this aspect, although the resident informed us on 24 July 2024 that he was concerned about fire doors not closing and some required replacing.
24. Under paragraph 44 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk), we can decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme and taking account of the evidence of failure presented. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman has therefore made observations on the evidence presented.
25. The estate inspection check lists provided showed that the fire doors were checked for damage.
26. The repair records included:
    1. Two inspections on unspecified dates following a report of broken glass but the glass was intact.
    2. Various related repairs which were carried out in March, April and August 2023.
    3. On 23 May, 2023 and 27 June 2023, 23 September, and 27 November remedial repairs to communal fire doors as identified in the fire risk assessment (FRA) inspection.
    4. On 30 January 2024, the landlord fitted 16 fire doors with floor mounted door stops.
    5. Jammed fire door reported on 18 March 2024 and repaired the following day.
27. The FRA dated 6 June 2024 made a number of observations and recommendations. They included:
    1. The fire resisting door sets and partitions do not appear to be to the appropriate fire resisting standards.
    2. A previous assessment of the fire doors had identified issues with approximately 6 doors including the communal flat entrance doors.
    3. Fire doors were found to be wedged open.
    4. There were a number of issues where the landlord had either not kept adequate records, or that required actioning.
    5. Any holes in the ceiling and walls would negate fire compartmentation.
28. All items had been marked as actioned but many by way of delegating to a specific staff member, including the concierge team, so that action to be taken was not clear and the final outcome in many cases was incomplete. The record that actions have been progressed provided to the Ombudsman (which may have been updated) was not adequate. The Ombudsman will therefore make a recommendation that an update of the actions since August 2024 with timescales for the recommended works is provided to this Service.
29. The landlord’s website had a Building Safety Tenant Engagement Strategy dated April 2024. However, on 17 September 2024, the landlord informed us that its contractor had no specific Building Safety Strategy, aside from resident engagement. This is concerning and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation accordingly.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

30. The responses were timely and addressed the resident’s concerns however, the Stage 1 response did not given timescales for the works. Without timescales, this did not constitute a proper resolution. Timescales would help manage the resident’s expectations. They also provide the landlord a measure against which to monitor works and update the resident if necessary. Neither complaint response addressed the resident’s complaint that he had been raising the same issues for some time.
31. The Stage 2 response did not address the resident’s concerns that the concierge was not qualified. It was unreasonable to respond by asking, more than once, for the resident’s evidence, which came across as challenging the resident rather than helpful. The landlord could have simply answered the question and provided an explanation of its position.
32. Not responding to aspects of a complaint would be frustrating for the resident and moreover does not constitute a resolution. It did not demonstrate that the landlord had considered our three principles behind effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes.
33. The Stage 2 response did not set out the landlord was to box in the telephone wires nor offer an update or an explanation why it had not done this sooner. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2024 as promised in the Stage 2 letter, stating that a deep clean would be carried out in May 2024 and its contractor was investigating the exposed wires with the telephony companies. However, there was no evidence of any further update. The landlord informed us on 17 September 2024 that there had been no updates to the resident since the Stage 2 response and the resident informed this Service the same. We would expect the landlord to follow through with its assurance and monitor that the proposed resolution is carried out.
34. In the circumstances, while aspects of the complaint handling were positive such as addressing the exposed wires, offering to do a walk-around and doing a deep clean, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Determination

35. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas and the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building.
36. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

37. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident in order to update its record of his vulnerabilities, including asking what reasonable adjustments it should make, if any, update its records and confirm this to the Ombudsman with evidence within 4 weeks. 
    2. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should consider whether the telephony wires present a hazard, contact the relevant telephony companies if so, and, within 4 weeks, box in the exposed wires and update the resident with a copy to the Ombudsman.
    3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £550 and consisting as follows:
       1. £400 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of cleaning and maintenance issues in the communal areas and the resident’s concerns about the safety of the building.
       2. £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
    4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should review the condition of the communal flooring, taking into consideration the deterioration since it was replaced, whether the flooring is sustainable and, if not, replace it with flooring of a suitable and sustainable quality, as promised in its complaint response of 16 June 2023. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its intentions, supported by evidence, and provide any timescales for its replacement.
    5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should update the resident and Ombudsman in relation to the works in the car park with either a timescale or an explanation why works are not being carried and a commitment to update the resident every 6 weeks. This could be by way of signage in the communal areas.
    6. Within 12 weeks, the landlord should commit to a) publishing its service standards with its contractor in relation to the maintenance of the communal areas, b) introducing a policy and procedure for i) estate and communal repairs and ii) building safety.
38. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 12 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

39. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should respond to existing and new reports about the condition of the communal parts with updates and timescales for works. This could be way of signage in the communal parts. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide feedback to the resident and the Ombudsman in relation to this recommendation.
    2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should write to the resident with timescales regarding resolving the closure of the fire doors, with a copy to the Ombudsman.
    3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should update the Ombudsman regarding the works it has undertaken and proposed works with timescales in relation to the recommendations made in the Fire Risk Assessment of 6 June 2024, further to its update of August 2024.