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

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202311610)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311610

Wandle Housing Association Limited

29 November 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the door entry system during and after a power cut.
    2. Concerns about fire safety and whether the landlord provided a service in return for the fire safety service charge.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a shared owner since June 2012. The property is a second floor 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On Saturday 3 June 2023, a power cut in the local area affected the block of flats the resident lives in.
  3. On 5 June 2023, the resident complained about the effect the power cut had and the landlord’s response. She said the power cut meant communal doors would not open, which left residents “trapped” in the building. She said this was a failure by the landlord on fire safety regulations. She also said residents had no water during the power cut and the repairs had left the security doors open, which meant residents were vulnerable to intruders. The resident wanted compensation for the inconvenience caused and a solution that would stop the doors failing in future. She said residents had previously raised the fault with the doors and the landlord’s lack of action was negligence.
  4. In its complaint response on 19 June 2023, the landlord said it responded straight away to the reported fault. It said it understood the resident’s concerns and its health and safety team would investigate. It said it had ordered parts for the front and rear doors and would fit new locks with fail safe mechanisms by 23 June 2023. It said it had ordered a new inner door and it would fit it in September 2023. It acknowledged it got things wrong and apologised for inconvenience and distress caused. It said it was sending a separate communication to all residents informing them about how it planned to resolve the situation. It offered the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience.
  5. On 19 June 2023, the resident told the landlord it had not responded on the point that it knew about a similar event in 2019. She said she had evidence. The resident said she was living in a building that was a fire hazard and £150 compensation was not adequate. She wanted compensation for all residents. The landlord sent a letter to all residents on 20 June 2023 apologising for the situation and offering £150 compensation.
  6. The landlord asked the resident on 22 June 2023 to provide evidence of earlier problems with the doors. It said the compensation was in line with its complaints policy. It said the fault on 3 June 2023, was reported just after 9:00am, and it gained access to the building just after 11:30am. It said following the incident on 3 June, it had requested a new fire risk assessment.
  7. A fire risk assessment took place on 11 July 2023.
  8. In its final response on 21 July 2023, the landlord said it had made repairs to the doors since 2019, and its records showed a similar incident in January 2019. It said it had responded to each report and attended swiftly. It said following the June 2023 incident, it was confident it had provided a permanent solution. It acknowledged it had taken longer than it would have liked to find a permanent solution but said it had not been negligent. It said it had fitted new locks, which included a failsafe. It acknowledged the power loss was inconvenient and distressing and said the £150 offer to all residents recognised this and any costs incurred.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord was negligent as it had not provided a failsafe door since 2012, despite knowing about the problem in 2019. She said she had paid a fire safety service charge for a building that was not safe, and it should refund the money, along with compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her complaint, the resident referred to an earlier incident with the doors in 2019. Having considered the evidence, we have decided that the Ombudsman cannot consider how the landlord responded to the event in 2019. This is because we have not been provided with evidence this issue exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in 2019, and 4 years have passed since this time. Instead, our investigation will focus on the events brought to the landlord’s attention in June 2023. This is because under 42.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints formally brought to his attention within 12 months of the event. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether there were actions the landlord should have done after the incident in 2019.
  2. The resident raised concerns about fire safety in the property. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide whether a building meets fire safety regulations. The fire services are responsible for enforcing a landlord’s fire safety obligations. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable manner.
  3. The resident said in her complaint that the landlord was negligent. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord was negligent, as this is a matter for the courts. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs to the door entry system during and after a power cut

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This means the landlord has a general obligation to repair and maintain the property. The lease agreement makes it clear that the landlord was responsible for repairing common parts, which includes the main entry doors to the flats.
  2. The 2010 Building Regulations on fire safety that were applicable at the time says where automatic doors are placed across escape routes, they should have a return to an unlocked position if the mains electricity supply fails.
  3. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord has a plan to address fire safety works related to external cladding and it has communicated this to residents.
  4. Records show that on 19 November 2019, a resident in the block of flats told the landlord that a power cut had meant key fobs did not work. The resident said this had been “raised a few years ago and nothing was done”. The landlord responded on 28 November 2019 and said it would discuss the issue with its asset team. The Ombudsman has seen no further communications on this matter until June 2023.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen a fire risk assessment from 29 September 2021. This noted that some seals on the door to the rear lobby on the ground floor were missing and it should replace them. It also found excessive gaps at the threshold of most communal fire doors, which needed to be sealed. It found the building was provided with reasonable means of escape in case of fire. There was no reference to failsafe mechanisms not being present. The Ombudsman has seen no further fire risk assessments until July 2023.
  6. Records provided by the landlord show that it made repairs to door handles on the main entrance doors in March, April, and May 2023.
  7. On Saturday 3 June 2023, a power cut which was outside the landlord’s control affected the resident’s block and other properties in the neighbourhood. The landlord and resident both agree that a power cut happened between 8:00am and 9:00am. The landlord said in its complaint response that it received a report of a power cut affecting the doors just after 9:00am. In her complaint, the resident said that she and other residents were “trapped” in the building for over 5 hours. The landlord said in its complaint response that it gained access to the building by 11:30am, which was 2 and half hours after it received the report. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord forced entry through the doors at 11:30am.
  8. From the information provided, the Ombudsman is not able to determine exactly how long residents were unable to leave or gain entry to the building. However, based on the information provided, it was between 3 and 4 hours. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who was unable to go about her daily business. The resident also had heightened concerns about fire risks in the building related to external cladding. The Ombudsman recognises that this caused her additional distress.
  9. Following the incident, the landlord arranged for contractors to find the cause of the fault. They reported back on 6 June 2023 that the locking systems were ‘fail secure’ instead of ‘fail safe’, which meant they did not open during a loss of power. It recommended changing the locks to fail safe. Contractors also suggested that a handle and push plate had been removed 2 weeks before the incident. The contractors said because these had been removed, residents were unable to open the door manually, and they had no way of exiting the building.
  10. In its complaint response on 19 June 2023, the landlord said it had ordered parts and it would fit fail safe mechanisms on the outer doors by 23 June 2023. It said a new door for the inner lobby was needed and would fit this in September 2023.
  11. The resident complained that she was without water until 6:00pm on 3 June 2023 as the supply relied on an electric pump. She said the landlord told residents it would bring water, but it did not do this. Although the power cut was beyond the landlord’s control, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider whether there were any vulnerable residents without water for a significant period and make necessary arrangements. It appears the landlord did not do this. However, the Ombudsman has noted that residents were able to leave the property by 11:30am and so for non-vulnerable residents the level of inconvenience would have been low.
  12. The resident also complained that the landlord left the property unsecure as the doors were left unlocked. The landlord could not lock the doors, as this would be a fire safety risk. An alternative would have been to employ security, but this would not have been proportionate. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was an unfortunate situation but, in the circumstances, the landlord did not have other realistic options available.
  13. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded reasonably to the incident on 3 June 2023. This is because it attended and did emergency work on the same day. It then arranged for contractors to attend on 6 June 2023 to find the cause of the fault. It quickly ordered parts for the external doors and fitted them in a reasonable time. It told the resident there would be a delay in replacing the inner door. This was also reasonable.
  14. The landlord also offered all residents in the block £150 for inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with the £150 compensation offer, and her comment that her life is worth more than £150 and the landlord was negligent. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s view. The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord acknowledged that it got things wrong. Taking everything into account, the Ombudsman cannot determine negligence, and it is not reasonable when determining the impact of a mistake to speculate on potential impacts in a different set of circumstances. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found that the £150 was reasonable redress for the time the resident was inconvenienced and the distress caused.
  15. However, there is a question over why the landlord did not find the underlying fault with the doors sooner. Records show a resident raised concerns about the doors in 2019. The landlord said it would investigate this. The Ombudsman has not seen any records showing it did work to remedy the reported fault. However, the Ombudsman has also seen the independent fire safety report from 2021 and has noted that this raised no concerns about the doors.
  16. After the incident on 3 June 2023, contractors suggested that repairs done in May 2023 could have caused the problem. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this is the case. However, because of the opinion expressed by the contractor, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should assure itself that contractors working on fire exit doors are aware of the consequences of making changes to locks and handles.

 

Concerns about fire safety and whether the landlord provided a service for the fire safety service charge

  1. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the landlord to conduct fire risk assessments. Assessments should ensure that there are adequate emergency routes and exits, and that these are always kept clear.
  2. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide whether a building meets fire safety regulations. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable manner.
  3. Records provided by the landlord show an independent fire risk assessment was done in September 2021. This made recommendations to the landlord about the maintenance of electrical installations and removal of combustible materials on private balconies. The Ombudsman has not seen details of how the landlord responded to the assessment, or copies of other assessments until the one conducted in July 2023.
  4. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with copies of regular correspondence sent to residents during 2022 and 2023 about external wall system remedial works. These include invitations to meetings with residents to discuss planned works.
  5. Following the incident on 3 June 2023, the landlord told the resident in its complaint response on 19 June 2023 that it had referred the matter to its health and safety team. On 22 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it had requested a new fire safety assessment. The assessment was done on 11 July 2023. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a reasonable response to the incident.
  6. In its final response on 21 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that in a further commitment to safety, its building safety and compliance lead had met with the resident and had written to all residents in recent months. It said it had explained that in line with Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and guidance, it had undertaken fire risk assessments and completed an external wall survey. It said actions and mitigations identified as part of these were in place, including fire escape routes being regularly checked.
  7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a property meets fire safety standards. However, based on the information provided, the landlord has conducted regular fire safety inspections and has worked with residents to address concerns about fire safety. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the door entry system during and after a power cut.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of concerns about fire safety and whether the landlord provided a service in return for the fire safety service charge.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord should assure itself that contractors working on fire exit doors are aware of the consequences of making changes to locks and handles.
  2. It is recommended the landlord reoffer the £150 compensation it previously offered.