Notting Hill Genesis (202009594)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009594

Notting Hill Genesis

11 May 2021

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 report of a fault to the communal fire alarm on 8 May 2020.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety in the building which the property is situated in.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a flat situated in a converted period property (the building).

Summary of events

On 8 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to report a fault to the communal fire alarm (the alarm). The resident said:
1. The alarm had sounded earlier that day which “caused great panic”.
2. Another tenant was able to stop the alarm.
3. She understood that the alarm had a fault which needed to be repaired.
4. Since the alarm was installed the landlord had not informed tenants how the alarm worked or undertaken a fire drill exercise.
On 19 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to register a formal complaint regarding the alarm. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite reporting a fault on the alarm on 8 May 2020 the landlord had not responded.
2. The alarm “disrepair remained”. The resident stated that she believed that the alarm should be attended to as an emergency repair.
3. She was aware that another tenant had reported the alarm to the landlord also.
4. The situation was causing “distress and anxiety”.
On the same day the landlord responded. The Ombudsman understands that this was the landlord’s stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s email dated 8 May 2020. The landlord explained that this was because another tenant had already reported the issue with the alarm and it was liaising directly with them.
2. It disputed that the issue reported on 8 May 2020 was disrepair, rather it was a fault which required rectifying.
3. The tenant it was liaising with on 8 May 2020 had reported that the fault had been addressed.
4. No further fault had been reported since 8 May 2020 however it had requested that a member of its fire team attend the building to check the alarm.
5. The resident should report urgent repairs by phone so it could be responded to immediately.
On 23 June 2020 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s response as it did not fully address her email dated 8 May 2020.
2. She was “disappointed that time was taken to emphasize/ disagree with the term used to describe the serious issue with the fire alarm… as opposed to taking prompt steps to ensure that the fire alarm was in good working order”.
3. The landlord was obliged to repair the alarm.
4. The landlord did not issue an update about the repair to address the fault to fix the alarm. The resident asked the landlord to explain how it would avoid this happening again.
5. The no smoking sign had been removed and she therefore requested that it be replaced. The resident noted on 25 May 2020 she had observed a strong smell of smoking in the building.
On 26 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident was not satisfied with its response, however it did not believe that it had failed to carry out its duty as a responsible landlord in relation to the alarm.
2. It only became aware of smoking in the building following the resident’s report on 23 June 2020.
3. The fault to the alarm which occurred on 8 May 2020 was remedied on the same day following contact by another tenant.
4. In respect of ongoing maintenance, the alarm was checked in March 2020 and on 19 June 2020. The landlord confirmed that no defects were reported.
On 1 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident stated that if the landlord maintained that it had responded appropriately to her concerns about the alarm it should escalate her complaint in line with its complaint procedure. The landlord responding confirming that the complaint would be escalated.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord provided its stage two (final) response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in considering the resident’s complaint at stage two.
2. It did not provide the resident with a written response to her email dated 8 May 2020. The landlord explained that it had therefore failed to notify the resident that the fault to the alarm was remedied by undertaking a reset. The landlord acknowledged that its lack of communication would have led the resident to believe that she was at increased risk should there have been a fire within the building. The landlord stated that it should have communicated with all residents explaining what was done to reset the alarm and to reassure them that the issued had been resolved. The landlord acknowledged that it had not been proactive.
3. It had liaised with another tenant to resolve the fault by giving them verbal directions to reset the alarm panel over the phone. The landlord noted that it would not usually ask tenants to reset the alarm panel, however due to Government restrictions (Covid-19) its engineer had talked the tenant through the process of rectifying the fault.
4. The alarm was serviced on 17 March 2020 and a fault was found in zone 1 which was rectified. The landlord confirmed that the contractor attended to service the alarm again on 19 June 2020 and a fault was found in zone 2 which was rectified.
5. It was not appropriate that it disputed whether the fault to the alarm was a disrepair item or not. The landlord apologised. The landlord noted that disrepair was handled differently from normal repairs.
6. It had instructed its estate team to erect a new “no smoking” sign in the communal area of the building.
7. It had recently changed its policy so that communal fire alarms were serviced bi-annually instead of annually.
8. It did not carry out fire drills in its buildings however it did advise new tenants of the fire policy for their property. The landlord explained that the building operated an evacuation policy should there be a fire.
9. It would like to offer £240 compensation comprising:
  1. £50 for delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage two.
  2. £30 for failure to respond to the resident’s email dated 8 May 2020.
  3. £30 for failure to inform the resident of the action to resolve the alarm fault on 8 May 2020.
  4. £30 for disputing whether or not the fault was a repair or disrepair.
  5. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response.
On 7 August 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s final response. In summary the resident said:
1. She was disappointed that the landlord had not provided an explanation detailing the reason for the delay in providing its stage two response.
2. The date of the alarm panel reset was not given. The resident noted that the alarm panel showed a red light until 23 June 2020, indicating a fault until that time. The resident stated that the red light turned green after she contacted the landlord on 23 June 2020.
3. The length of time the alarm was faulty was a breach of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the Order).
4. It was unclear if the landlord considered a fault to the alarm as an emergency repair.
5. It was not clear why tenants were not notified of the delayed repair to the alarm and safety steps they could take pending the repair. The resident asked the landlord how it would improve its communication.
6. It was disappointing that the landlord had not included an apology for the distress and anxiety caused.
7. It would have been useful had the landlord provided a date for the installation of the new no smoking sign. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the date of installation.
8. She was concerned regarding “false alarms”. The resident stated that the landlord needed to take steps to reduce false alarms so that the alarm only sounded if there was a fire. The resident stated that in line with the Order the alarm should be checked weekly. The resident asked the landlord to notify tenants of the check in advance.
9. The landlord should have notified tenants of its change in policy to service the fire alarm bi-annually.
10. She was concerned that fire drills would not be arranged by the landlord.
11. She accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident did not feel that it had provided a comprehensive response at stage two.
2. It was making enquiries to confirm the date that the new no smoking sign would be installed.
3. It was not required to carry out a fire drill in its general needs properties so this would not be implemented. The landlord signposted the resident to the fire brigade if she would like an independent assessment of the property in case of a fire.
4. If the resident felt that the property restricted her ability to evacuate she may register for a transfer to a “more suitable home”.
5. It was sorry that the resident did not feel like it had apologised. The landlord apolgoised for the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
6. Moving forwards faults to fire alarms would be treated as a priority.
The landlord concluded by reiterating that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response.
On 2 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she was concerned that it had suggested that she move to an alternative property. The resident said it was “passive aggressive and very disappointing”.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident was disappointed with its response. The landlord stated that it was “by no means suggesting that [the resident] move home”. The landlord stated that if the resident felt that the property restricted her ability to evacuate she could register for a transfer to a more suitable property. The landlord noted that it may not be an option the resident wanted to explore but it was important that she was informed of the options available to her.
As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response she referred the matter to the Ombudsman for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fault to the communal fire alarm on 8 May 2020

The landlord has provided its records demonstrating its response to the fault to the alarm on 8 May 2020. The records show that on 8 May 2020 the landlord’s contractor provided instructions to another tenant to remedy the fault by undertaking a reset. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s explanation that its contractor did not attend in person to remedy the fault due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord arranged for the alarm to be inspected. The record of the inspection on 19 June 2020 noted that the contractor reset the panel and no defects were observed. The record does not dispute that a red light was shown on the panel. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate that the landlord arranged to inspect the panel, as the resident was concerned that the fault was not fully remedied following the actions on 8 May 2020.
As part of its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident regarding the repair to fix the fault on the alarm on 8 May 2020 was unsatisfactory as it did not acknowledge her email reporting the fault and it did not inform her of the steps it had taken to remedy it. From the chronology the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s own conclusion.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has provided the appropriate redress. In this case the landlord awarded £160 compensation comprising:
1. £30 for failure to respond to the resident’s email dated 8 May 2020.
2. £30 for failure to inform the resident of the action to resolve the alarm fault on 8 May 2020.
3. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy as the policy confirms that it may offer compensation “to acknowledge that there has been a service failure” and therefore to put things right. The policy sets out that it may award up to a maximum of £250 for inconvenience and distress, £30 for repair-related issues and up to £50 for other service failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the service failure identified and the impact on the resident, and in line with its compensation policy.
In considering the complaint the landlord also acknowledged that it was inappropriate that it had challenged the terminology which the resident used to report the fault to the alarm – disrepair – and therefore awarded the resident £30 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as the resident’s terminology did not undermine the issue which she was raising.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety in the building in which the property is situated.

The landlord’s fire policy sets out that it will only complete fire drills in its offices and in its “housing for older people and extra care schemes” due to the existence of “extensive communal amenities”. The landlord was therefore acting in accordance with its fire policy in informing the resident that it would not be completing fire drills at the building. The Ombudsman understands that the Order does not require the landlord to undertake a fire drill in respect of the building.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the most recent fire risk assessment (FRA) for the building which is dated April 2021. In relation to this complaint the Ombudsman notes that the FRA confirms that “the common area fire detection/ alarm systems are inspected and serviced in accordance with relevant guidance”. It is appropriate that the landlord has undertaken the FRA assessment to make sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect the residents in case of fire. The Ombudsman notes that the FRA has made seven recommendations for the landlord to act upon, none of which were identified as “urgent”.
In response to the resident’s notification that the no smoking sign had been removed from the communal area the landlord installed a new one. This action was completed on 30 September 2020. The FRA confirms that “adequate no smoking signage is provided in the common areas”.
While the resident believes that the landlord’s suggestion that she may wish to consider a property transfer in response to its approach to fire safety was passive aggressive and disappointing, the Ombudsman does not agree. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she may apply for alternative housing if she did not feel safe in the property due to its approach to fire safety in the building, which it confirmed it would not be changing in response to her complaint. It was also appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the fire service for independent advice on fire safety as it could provide advice suited to her individual needs. The Ombudsman notes that since the complaint the landlord has completed an Emergency Evaluation Plan with the resident. This is appropriate to ensure that the resident is clear on the process to evacuate the property in an emergency.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that the landlord will investigate stage one complaints providing a formal response within 10 working days. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint dated 19 June 2020 promptly, the Ombudsman is concerned that its response did not indicate whether the response was given formally under its complaint procedure or not. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not amount to a service failure as the landlord did progress the resident’s complaint to stage two on receipt of her request.
As part of its final response the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s stage two complaint within its service standard of 20 working days. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £50 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s remedy was proportionate to the situation, noting that the response was only three days overdue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about:
1. The fault to the communal fire alarm on 8 May 2020.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety in the building which the property is situated in.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fault to the communal fire alarm on 8 May 2020

While the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fault to the communal fire alarm on 8 May 2020 was unsatisfactory, as it did not inform the resident of the steps it was taking to address the fault and that the matter had been remedied on the same day, the landlord acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation (£160). The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation (£30) was reasonable to acknowledge that it was inappropriate that it challenged the resident’s terminology in relation to the fault to the alarm.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety in the building which the property is situated in

The landlord was acting in line with its fire policy in confirming that it would not be completing fire drills at the building.
The FRA confirmed that the common area fire detection/ alarm systems are inspected and serviced in accordance with relevant guidance.
The landlord reinstalled the no smoking sign on notification that it had been removed from the communal area.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she may apply for alternative housing if she did not feel safe in the property due to its approach to fire safety in the building. It was also appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the fire service for independent advice on fire safety as it could provide advice suited to her individual needs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord did not indicate whether its response dated 19 June 2020 was given under its complaint procedure or not, which is unsatisfactory, it does not amount to a service failure as it did progress her complaint to stage two on receipt of the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord acknowledged that its stage two response was delayed and therefore awarded proportionate compensation in recognition of the delay.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the compensation which it awarded her in consideration of her complaint if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider giving the occupants of the building advance notice of planned maintenance work/ servicing to the fire alarm and explain whether any false alarms may be heard during the appointment so that they are appropriately informed.
The landlord should ensure that it complies with the recommendations following the FRA in line with the recommended timescales.