Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202213064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213064

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

25 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety including repairs to the door and windows.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a mid-terrace house, which has been converted into 2 separate, self-contained flats. Flat A (occupied by another tenant of the landlord) is located on the ground floor and flat B (occupied by the resident) is located on the first floor. Both flats are accessed at ground floor level from within the ground floor communal entrance lobby. The resident has lived at the property since 2004. The landlord advised this Service that it was aware that the resident had been diagnosed with cancer.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the window sills, window catches, sash cords and window frames. It is also responsible for internal doors and door frames.
2. The resident may not commit any act which may cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance of other tenants.
3. The resident is required to keep common areas free of obstacles which may cause injury or nuisance or annoyance to others or which may obstruct means of escape in case of fire.
4. The resident may not use the premises in any way which may endanger health, life or property.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises. It gives an example of misuse of communal areas.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. Emergency repairs are those where there is an immediate danger to a person’s safety or of major damage to the property. It will attend to make safe within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
3. Where it has failed to attend or re-arrange an appointment, it will award the resident £25 compensation which will be credited to the resident’s rent account.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Blockages preventing a resident from exiting their property would be a potential hazard within the scope of the HHSRS. Insecure windows are also potential hazards that can potentially cause risks and as such fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s compliance policy sets out its responsibilities for fire safety as follows:
1. When completing a fire risk assessment, it must identify potential fire hazards, those who may be harmed and the measures in place to mitigate those risks.
2. It aims to mitigate the risks identified to residents and ensure systems are in place and in working order with the aim of preserving life during a fire emergency.
3. It will ensure that fire risk assessments are carried out and kept up to date.
4. It will implement all necessary general fire precautions and any other measures identified by a fire risk assessment. All actions deriving from a fire risk assessment will be automatically logged on its bespoke fire compliance platform.
The landlord’s decant policy states that a decant will be considered when works are required which cannot be completed with a resident staying at the property. A decant will only be considered when all options for completing the required works with the resident in situ have been exhausted.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. It does not consider a problem that a resident has known about for over 6 months to be a complaint.
2. It operates a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If extra time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

A fire risk assessment was carried out at the property on 8 July 2020 which noted as follows:
1. Due to COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time, inspections of entrance doors to each flat had not been carried out. It recommended that the landlord continue with their own rolling programme of checks when safe to do so. The landlord should check all flat entrance doors to confirm that self-closers, strips and seals are fitted and remain effective. There were no flat entrance door issues noted at the time of inspection.
2. Fire door signage was not adequate.
3. The block entrance doors should be provided with an effective self-closer and kept locked.
4. The meter enclosure did not appear to be adequately fire-stopped.
5. It recommended a reassessment on 24 July 2023.
There is no evidence of any further action taken by the landlord in respect of the fire risk assessment until 18 March 2022 when the landlord’s fire and security team wrote to the resident to advise that some fire safety works would be carried out in the property or communal area (the works were not specified). It stated that it would attend on 28 April 2022.
There was a further gap in the correspondence provided to this Service until 9 August 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. She was concerned about her door and windows being fire risks.
2. The elderly neighbour in the ground floor flat would often leave her flat door open. This would prevent the resident from opening the door to her property. She stated that if there was a fire, she could be prevented from opening her door into the lobby and would be unable to escape. She believed that the neighbour’s door used to open inwards but had been changed at some point to open outwards. She requested that the door to the neighbour’s flat be re-hung so that it opened inwards to stop her doorway being blocked.
3. Following the fire safety letter from 18 March 2022 (which she believed was in respect of the door) no–one had attended and she had not heard anything since.
4. Her living room had 2 windows. The left hand window would not open which she stated was a fire risk. The right hand window would not close fully so the room was cold.
5. The bedroom window was difficult to open and close in damp weather. She had a medical condition that caused her problems with opening and closing it.
6. She had been told “many months ago” that all of the windows were due to be changed that year (2022) but she had heard nothing further.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 2 September 2022 as she had not had a response and was concerned about the fire risk. She advised that if the landlord did not respond that she would contact the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 September 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 October 2022 as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. That same day this Service asked the landlord to respond to the complaint by 20 October 2022.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord attended the property and spoke to the resident about her concerns. It noted that it had passed the issue with the door to its surveyor to find a solution. It advised in an email to the resident that same day that it would speak to the neighbour and asked for details on how often the door was being left open. It also noted internally as follows:
1. “Flat door required fire door strip and adjusting dragging along the floor top hinged lose”.
2. “Front elevations windows required adjusting and windows revile make watertight (cement work)”.
3. Sash lock to left hand window.
4. Back bedroom window adjusting required and new bottom sash handles.
5. Kitchen extractor fan needs replacing.
6. Flat A (the neighbour’s) door opening out to corridor blocking at the same time Flat B (the resident’s) door. Requires surveyor to attend and advise.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 19 October 2022 and stated as follows:
1. It had fallen short of the usual standards that it intended to deliver. The complaint had been referred to its Customer Relationship Management team to action on 23 August 2022 and unfortunately this had not been followed through.
2. It had attended the property on 12 October 2022 and confirmed the scope of the works as per its notes from 13 October 2022 (above). It had arranged to contact the resident to gather further details in respect of the neighbour’s door with a view to speaking to the neighbour about it.
3. The window issue had been reported over a year ago. It was being managed as a service request rather than a complaint, as the resident had known about the issue for over 6 months.
4. It acknowledged that the situation should have been managed more effectively in terms of its quality of service and communication. It had raised this as lessons learnt and offered £50 compensation.
On 20 October 2022 the resident escalated her complaint and stated as follows:
1. She had complained about the windows over a year ago and had been advised that the windows were due to be replaced (likely by April 2022) which had not happened. The landlord had not been clear as to the difference between a service request and a complaint.
2. She had been told (it is not clear by who or when) that the door to her property needed to be replaced as it was not compliant with fire regulations. Works to the existing door had not been discussed.
3. The landlord had not addressed its lack of follow up to the fire safety letter from March 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 25 October 2022. It advised it would aim to respond by 17 November 2022.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It upheld its stage 1 decision.
2. Both windows had been investigated on 13 October 2022. The windows were not on its replacement programme for 2022.
3. The following repairs had been booked for 24 November 2022:
  1. Flat door required fire door strip and adjusting dragging along the floor top hinged loose.
  2. Front elevations windows required adjusting and windows reveal make watertight.
  3. Sash lock to left hand window.
  4. Back bedroom – adjusting required and new bottom sash handles.
4. It had spoken to the neighbour regarding the door and had reminded them not to leave it open.
5. Its contractor had advised (it is not clear when) that a replacement door was required at the resident’s property and the door was not fit for purpose. There was however a delay within the supply chain. It apologised for any inconvenience caused. The contractor would see if this could be expedited and it would advise further by 21 November 2022. In the meantime there were other measures the resident could take to protect her in case of a fire, such as early warning devices and smoke and heat detectors within the property.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord carried out the works as outlined within the stage 2 response. It also rehung the door. Contemporaneous notes were not provided to this Service however it can reasonably be concluded that this was the neighbour’s door as this was the door where the way it was hung had caused an issue.
There was a gap in the correspondence provided to this Service until 26 June 2023 when a fire risk assessment was carried out by the landlord. It noted as follows:
1. The means of escape from the neighbour’s flat was unsuitable. The neighbour’s entrance door opened into the very narrow hallway which was very tight and impossible for anyone in the lounge to get out without shutting the door and going back into the hallway. In the event of an incident which required the neighbour’s flat to evacuate, the existing provision was likely to delay their escape and put the occupants at more risk. The means of escape from within the neighbour’s flat should be reviewed and the opening direction of the door changed if possible.
2. No adequate self-closing device, intumescent strips or cold smoke seals were fitted to the entrance door of flat A, (the neighbour’s flat).
3. Perimeter gaps in excess of 7mm were noted around flat B’s (the resident’s) entrance door which would not resist the passage of cold smoke. The flat entrance door should be repaired (or if necessary replaced) to reduce the perimeter gap between the door and frame to a maximum of 3mm.
4. The entrance door to the premises was not self-closing. The block entrance doors should be provided with an effective self-closer and kept locked.
5. There were combustible items or waste materials in the escape routes. The landlord should contact residents to advise that the common area/escape routes should be kept free from all combustibles hazards.
On 6 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. Almost a year had passed since her complaint and matters were still outstanding.
2. The fire door to her flat had not been hung. The current door was a fire risk.
3. The left hand window in the living room would not stay open. When pushed up it would slide down. The right hand window would not close so the upper window was always open and could not be locked. The operative had advised that the window could not be repaired (it is not clear when). Without replacing the window the room would be uncomfortable and cold and heating costs would be higher.
That same day (6 July 2023) the landlord noted internally that the resident’s door needed to be replaced to ensure it met new compliance standards, however there were no significant concerns or fire risks. It currently had a halt on all door installations but it would likely be installed in the next 2 months.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord raised a job to inspect the resident’s windows to determine if a repair or replacement was required.
On 13 July 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays in updating her since the stage 2 response.
2. There had been delays with its door installation programme but it hoped to complete this within the next 2 months. It would be treated as a priority.
3. Works to the windows had been completed on 14 December 2022. It had arranged for an operative to attend on 26 July 2023 to inspect the windows. (This was rescheduled to 10 August 2023 at the resident’s request.)
On 10 August 2023 a door replacement survey form was completed by an operative. In addition, the windows were inspected and works were raised to remove 2 sash windows, service the second sash window and fit draught excluders.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident that a new door had been ordered but that it could take up to 12 weeks to be delivered. A follow on appointment for the windows had been booked for 20 September 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 and stated as follows:
1. Work has been outstanding for over a year.
2. The fire door to her flat required replacing. This was a fire risk and caused her considerable worry. 2 visits had taken place to measure up for the new fire door. The first one on 13 October 2022 and the second one on 10 August 2023. The door had not been ordered following the first visit.
3. The windows had been inspected and it had been found that they could not be repaired. After nearly a year, the landlord was now saying they would be repaired.
On 6 September 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had installed the door the week before and was arranging associated decoration works. The works to the windows was marked as complete on 20 September 2022 and decoration works were completed by 25 September 2023.
On 26 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord what compensation it would offer her and stated as follows:
1. It had taken nearly 18 months for all of the work to be completed despite her visiting the landlord’s offices, making a number of calls and sending letters and emails.
2. She had not been able to leave her property unless the neighbour shut her door. The landlord had paid no regard to the fire risks and the worry that had caused her.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays in installing the door and the lack of updates following its stage 2 response from November 2022.
2. It acknowledged that it should have contacted the resident to advise her of the supply chain issue in respect of the door.
3. On 14 December 2022 it had carried out the following:
  1. 2 window closers were fitted.
  2. The flat door was rehung and a fire strip was fitted around the door.
4. The resident had contacted it again in July 2023 and reported a fault with the windows. This work was completed on 20 September 2023.
5. It acknowledged that it should have managed the situation effectively and it was not the level of service it intended to deliver. It should have taken further steps to ensure that the repair (it did not specify which) was being tracked and the follow-on actions were being followed through. It apologised for this.
6. It had learnt from the matter and had shared the learning with the relevant teams.
7. Due to the lack of communication and repair delay, it increased its offer of compensation (of £50 at stage 2) by a further £50, bringing the total offer to £100.
On 30 August 2023 the resident’s replacement door was installed.
On 3 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The offer of £100 was unacceptable.
2. It had offered £50 at stage 2 for a failure over a 2 month period. The actual time to complete the works had been 18 months.
3. It had failed to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.
4. At no time did the landlord offer to re-house her temporarily whilst the fire risk was dealt with.
5. Being made aware that she was living in a property with a fire risk had caused her considerable worry and stress. The landlord had ignored the risk and did not seem concerned with the effect it was having on her with her ongoing medical problems.
6. Until the landlord re-hung the door to the ground floor flat (the neighbour’s flat), there had been times when she was effectively locked in. If there had been a fire she would not have been able to get out.
On 18 October 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The fire safety team had not attended as advised in April 2022.
2. Following her contact with this Service, an inspection took place on 16 October 2022.
3. The neighbour’s door had been rehung but until that was done, whenever the neighbour left her door open, which was often, it prevented her leaving her property.
4. There had been a long delay in the fire door to her property being fitted and her windows being repaired. The landlord had no regard to the stress and worry this had caused or the effect on her already poor health.
5. The works had been competed but the compensation offered was not sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted the resident reported an impact on her mental and physical health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any such aspect of the resident’s complaint. This Service will however consider the landlord’s response in respect of compensation, its handling of the matters and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting her. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
The resident raised concerns about her windows in 2022. This was addressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure which was completed on 17 November 2022. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in respect of the windows from 2022 will be considered in this report. The resident subsequently raised other repair issues with the windows in July 2023. As the repairs from 2023 did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. These have been included to provide context in respect of the issues with the windows. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Following such, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

Fire safety including repairs to the door and windows

The fire risk assessment carried out on 8 July 2020 made it clear that, due to COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time, it had not inspected the entrance doors of the individual flats. It however advised that the landlord should do so when restrictions had been lifted. It is not clear if the landlord did so. The resident first brought the issue of the neighbor’s door blocking her exit from the property and being a fire risk, to the landlord’s attention on 9 August 2022. At that time she requested that the landlord rehang the neighbor’s door to stop it from blocking her exit. The resident also stated that she believed one of her living room windows not opening represented a risk. In addition, she reported that another window was insecure and did not fully close.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern about the neighbour’s door or the windows or attend to inspect her property until 13 October 2022. This was over 2 months after she had raised the issue and had made clear her significant safety concerns. Given the possible health and safety risk posed by the resident frequently being unable to leave her property via her front door and her window not opening, this delay was unreasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had taken seriously her concerns of, the fire risk, its obligation (including under the HHSRS) to ensure the resident was able to leave her property at any time and to make sure that doors open in such a way that in case of a fire the occupants can safely evacuate.
The landlord advised the resident that it had passed the matter to its surveyor (on 13 October 2022) and that it would speak to the neighbour about her actions. Despite this assurance and the repeat of the assurance in its stage 1 response (of 19 October 2022), there is no evidence that the landlord spoke to the neighbour about her actions until the stage 2 response of 17 November 2022. Other than stating that it had reminded the neighbour not to leave the door open, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the neighbor’s actions could or should be managed as a possible breach of tenancy or via its ASB policy. Given the frequency of the issues described by the resident, the impact this was having on her, and the potential consequences, the landlord could have taken further action in respect of addressing the neighbour’s actions as a matter of urgency.
Although contemporaneous notes have not been seen by this Service, the resident advised that landlord that a contractor had told her (on 13 October 2022) that her door was not compliant with fire safety regulations and that a fire door was required. The landlord had acknowledged that the door was, in its words, not fit for purpose. Its suggestions of other fire mitigation actions suggests that the door replacement was required due to concerns about a fire risk. Whilst the landlord suggested other actions the resident could take to protect herself from a fire while awaiting the fire door, this did not negate the landlord’s responsibility for addressing fire safety concerns in the property.
The landlord advised the resident within its stage 2 response that her replacement door was delayed due to supply chain issues. It appropriately apologised for this and advised that it would try to expedite the matter. It is acknowledged that supply chain issues do occur and are out of the landlord’s control. Despite the landlord’s commitment to expedite the new door, this did not happen and another fire risk assessment was carried out on 26 June 2023. This identified issues with the resident’s door as the perimeter gap was found to be too large and would therefore not resist the passage of cold smoke. The assessment advised that a door repair or replacement was needed. Despite being aware of issues with the resident’s door (by both its contractor in October 2022 and the fire risk assessment in June 2023), the landlord noted internally on 6 July 2023 that, although the door needed to be replaced, it did not represent a fire risk. This was contrary to the findings of the fire risk assessment less than 2 weeks earlier.
It is noted that the landlord did not order the new door until August 2023. This was around 10 months after a replacement had been deemed necessary. It is acknowledged that the landlord had stated that it had a halt on door production, however the reasons for this are not clear. In addition, there is no evidence that it appropriately communicated this to the resident or kept her updated. The landlord should have the flexibility to consider each case on its own merits rather than a blanket halt on production. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered other options such as sourcing a door from a different supplier. Given the concerns of the door having been found to not be able to resist smoke, the length of time this had been outstanding and the impact on the resident, this should have been prioritised. The landlord however failed to demonstrate that it had sufficiently appreciated the hazard posed by this. In total it took until 30 August 2023 for the resident’s door to be replaced. This was a delay of around 10 months which was not appropriate. This delay, along with not being able to freely leave her property caused considerable alarm and distress to the resident. This was alongside her ongoing health concerns.
The landlord had confirmed to the resident that it had rehung the neighbour’s door on 14 December 2022. Although it did not specify, it can reasonably be assumed that this was to make the neighbour’s door open inwards instead of opening out and to stop it from blocking the resident’s exit from her property. Although this is the solution which had been requested by the resident, the fire risk assessment from June 2023 identified that the neighbour’s door opening inwards (the change made by the landlord) created a hazard to the neighbour and impeded the neighbor’s exit of their property. It is of concern that in removing a hazard for the resident, the landlord potentially created a hazard for the neighbour, particularly in light of her being elderly. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a full fire safety assessment of both properties and to act upon any recommendations made to ensure that both properties are fire safe.
Within the stage 2 response of 17 November 2022 the landlord advised that works to the windows had been scheduled for 24 November 2022. This was over 3 months after the resident had reported the issue. It is not clear why but these window works did not take place until 14 December 2022, which was over 4 months since they had been reported (9 August to 14 December 2022). This timeframe was not appropriate. It is noted that the resident had stated that the insecure window made the property cold. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability when responding to this concern, that it offered her any temporary heaters or that it prioritised the repair in light of this. This was not appropriate.
The resident stated within her complaint (from 9 August 2022) that a contractor had not attended as advised on 28 March 2022 in respect of a fire safety issue. Despite the landlord’s responsive repairs policy stating that missed appointments will be acknowledged by way of £25 compensation, it did not address this missed appointment within its complaint responses or offer such compensation. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will credit this compensation to a resident’s account. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance notes that some landlords will wish to offset any payment of compensation against a resident’s arrears. However, it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s policy allows it to do this and it is particularly the case where it is considered that it would be unfair to do so. The compensation ordered in this case is to be paid directly to the resident.
It is noted that the resident felt that the landlord should have decanted her given her fire safety concerns, however its decant policy is clear that this will only be considered if works cannot take place with a resident in the property. In this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out works to the door with the resident present.
The landlord offered £50 compensation at stage 1 and it upheld this offer at stage 2. It was not clear whether this was offered in respect of the door or window issue however it was to acknowledge failures in its service and communication. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, it offered a further £50 compensation for lack of communication and repair delays, bringing its total offer to £100. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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 takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s offer of compensation in this case was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact of its failures or the repair delays on the resident. It is clear that it took around 4 months (9 August to 14 December 2022) to address the resident’s concerns about being unable to exit her property and for it to rehang the neighbour’s door. It also took the landlord around 2 months to address the window that would not open. Given the potential hazard that being unable to leave her property posed to the resident, and the alarm and distress this caused her, these timescale were not appropriate. The replacement of the resident’s door took around 10 months (from October 2022 to 30 August 2023). This was not appropriate given the fire risk assessment (June 2023) had identified that her door would not resist smoke.
The landlord’s lack of acknowledgement of the potential health and safety risks involved in this case by both the door and the window issue and its delays in responding to issues, which could be potential hazards, was a significant failure. The landlord lacked a holistic understanding of how the functionality of one property impacted on the other due to the layout and failed to find a resolution which did not cause a detriment to the resident or the neighbour. The landlord was aware of the resident’s poor health and the impact this matter was having on her. It however failed to take proactive action to explore other options in respect of the new door in light of the supply chain issue and a halt on door production.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on the fire risk assessment or that it expedited investigating and resolving the door issues despite the resident’s repeated concerns and her explaining the impact this had on her. As such it could not demonstrate that it had taken the situation sufficiently seriously. The rehanging of the neighbour’s door did not provide a permanent solution to the issue as it created a risk to the neighbour. There is no evidence that the landlord explored any other permanent solution to address the fire safety of both properties. The failures in this case amount to maladministration. In line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for cases of severe maladministration where the resident was caused detriment over a number of months, compensation of £500 has been offered. This takes account of the missed appointment from March 2022 and includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her complaint on 9 August 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 21 September 2022, after the resident had chased a response. Despite its acknowledgement, the landlord had not responded by 6 October 2022 and the resident sought the assistance of this Service. Following the involvement of this Service, the landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 October 2022. This timeframe of 50 working days to respond at stage 1 was outside the landlord’s complaints policy response timeframe of 10 working days. This was not reasonable and no clear explanation for this delay was provided.
Within the stage 1 response the landlord stated that, as the resident had known about the window issue for over 6 months, it would not manage this aspect as a complaint. This was not appropriate as the resident had advised that it had previously stated the windows would be replaced in 2022 but this had not happened. In addition to failing to respond to this ongoing issue (which was affecting the resident’s enjoyment of the property) as a complaint, the landlord also failed to address the lack of follow up to the fire safety letter from March 2022. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlords are expected to address all aspects of complaint as part of effective complaint handling. The landlord’s failure to do so was not appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 November 2022. This response was provided in line with the 20 working day timeframe as stated in its policy. The landlord went on to consider how it had kept the resident updated following the completion of the internal complaints process and it also addressed new aspects of window repair in September 2023 (10 months after the completion of the internal complaints process). It further considered its offer of compensation following the completion of the internal complaints procedure. It is noted that despite acknowledging the delayed stage 1 response, it did not offer redress for this or acknowledge the impact or frustration this caused to the resident. This was not appropriate. In summary the landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of the failures on the resident, compensation of £250 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety including repairs to the door and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate an acknowledgement and understanding of the potential health and safety risks involved and its delays in responding to issues which could be potential hazards. It failed to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of the operation of the doors of the 2 properties on each other and failed to demonstrate a resolution which did not cause a detriment to the resident or the neighbour. The landlord was not empathic to the resident’s vulnerability or the impact this matter was having on her. It failed to demonstrate initiative to replace the resident’s door sooner and instead relied on external factors to explain why it could not carry out the work.
The landlord significantly delayed responding at stage 1 and only did so following the involvement of this Service. The landlord failed to provide redress and failed to acknowledge the impact on the resident of this.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. The landlord’s Chief Executive is to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay £750 compensation, made up as follows:
3. £500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures to address the resident’s fire safety concerns. This includes the £100 offered during the internal complaints procedure.
4. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the complaint handling failures identified.
Within a reasonable timeframe, carry out a full fire safety assessment of both properties and provide evidence of compliance with any recommendations made to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. Within 8 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s response to fire risk assessment recommendations and its obligations under the HHSRS.