Haringey Council (202104095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104095

Haringey Council

25 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s request for the resident to remove the security gate/grill from her front door.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the leaseholder of her home (a flat), which is within a block of flats.
3. In late 2009 the resident asked for retrospective planning permission for a balcony door, windows, and an iron grille to her front door which she had installed some years previously.
4. On 13 May 2010 the landlord gave the resident retrospective consent for the replacement of the windows and doors to the property. There was no specific mention of the grille. In line with the conditions of the consent given, the resident would be responsible for all future maintenance and replacement (for whatever reason) for all the doors and windows in the property. The consent stated that the resident “must maintain them to a good standard and in accordance with any changes to the law or building regulations”. The landlord had “complete discretion” in deciding whether the resident complied with her repairing obligations and may decide to ask the resident to renew some or all of them in the future, but the landlord would give its reasons if it decided that this was necessary.
5. In March 2018 the resident and landlord corresponded, following the resident receiving the landlord’s magazine which referred to “door grill removal”. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the magazine, but later correspondence suggests that this refers to the charges it would levy against residents for the removal and storage of such grilles. The resident told the landlord she fitted her security grille after burglaries on her estate, and she was informed by a fire officer that it could be removed quickly if necessary. The landlord replied that its policy on door grills was based on fire brigade advice, and so it had recently moved from requesting removal of security grilles to active enforcement of the policy. It suggested that it would meet with residents to understand any concerns, and see what other measures it could put in place to prevent crime.
6. The resident wrote to the landlord in December 2019 regarding letters she had received about the removal of security gates. She said her original adaptations application had included the grille. The landlord said that it believed the resident was only granted permission for the replacement of doors and windows.
7. There is no evidence of further correspondence until the resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 20 November 2020. She said she had received further letters about removing the security gate. Amongst other things, she referred to her retrospective planning permission application, and the costs of removing and storing the gate. She said she felt the matter of security to her home was not handled property, and was dissatisfied with the letters she was receiving. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction that there had been no meeting to suggest a solution to the issue.
8. It appears that the landlord treated the above letter as a complaint, because it sent a stage one complaint response on 7 December 2020. It said it had already informed the resident that its policy allowing leaseholders to obtain permission for the replacement of windows and doors, did not have any scope for permission to be granted for the installation of metal grilles or security doors. Furthermore, retrospective permission could not be granted due to safety concerns the grilles could cause to residents in the event of a fire or other emergency.
9. The landlord explained that the information given in its 2018 residents magazine, listing the charges for removing grilles, had since been revised and there was now a one-off charge of £180 for the removal of the grille. The landlord apologised that the consultation previously promised did not take place, and said it would arrange for a visit to the resident’s address to take details of any anti-social behaviour, or answer any further questions the resident may have. Once this meeting had taken place, the resident would need to arrange to remove the grille by 15 January 2021.
10. In the resident’s reply, dated 9 December 2020, she said that when retrospective planning permission was made, the landlord was silent about the security grille, which was misleading. She also said that the landlord should have consulted about the charges for the removal of the grilles, which she first read about in the landlord’s magazine. The resident was also unhappy because she believed that other residents with grilles had not been asked to remove theirs, and the landlord had not inspected the block to check. She felt the landlord had targeted her, due to her being a leaseholder and vocal about resident issues. The resident said she expected a formal meeting with all other leaseholders/residents involved and was not sure what details the landlord expected her to provide regarding anti-social behaviour.
11. On 3 March 2021 the landlord sent the resident an instruction to remove the security grille. It said that, following a previous letter sent on 19 November 2020 asking that this was done, the resident must remove the grille within 14 days. Otherwise, the landlord would obtain a court order to remove it and recharge the resident for any costs it incurred in doing so.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord, in response, on 9 March 2021. She said that the landlord ignored her letter on 9 December 2021. She disagreed that the grille compromised the safety of residents, and reiterated that she believed it was included when she requested retrospective planning permission. The resident also said that the deadline in the instruction was too short notice for her to make other arrangements to secure her home, and asked why the notice was not served to other properties with security gates.
13. The resident repeated these concerns in a letter dated 15 March 2021, titled ‘stage two complaint’.
14. On 23 March 2021 the landlord wrote in response to an enquiry received from the resident’s MP on 11 March 2021 concerning the matter. It advised the resident who she could contact regarding any anti-social behaviour incidents (it appears that the landlord is referring to the resident’s claim that the grille helped stop crime here). It would stop any immediate action in relation to the removal of the grille to give the resident an opportunity to explore alternative security measures. However, it said that in the longer term the grille would be removed, as part of its borough-wide programme. The landlord explained that while the grille was still in place there was a risk of a delay in emergency services accessing the property.
15. The resident responded on 6 April 2021 that she sought a more robust deterrent to prevent burglary, like the security gate installed to her door.  The resident also said that her MP had written to the landlord on 4 December 2020, and she had since asked to escalate her complaint.
16. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 12 May 2021, it said that the resident was not granted planning permission for the installation of the grille, which had been explained in its stage one response, and also on 10 July 2020 (evidence of this correspondence has not been provided for this investigation). The landlord said that, although a policy was introduced in 2008 to allow permission for the replacement of windows and doors, this did not include metal grilles. It said it was satisfied that the decision to ask that the resident to remove the grille was appropriate.
17. Furthermore, the landlord said that the resident had been aware of its request to remove the grille for some time, so it did not find it inappropriate that it sent an enforcement letter requiring the resident to now do so. The landlord acknowledged that the resident felt that the grille posed no risk to her household, but reiterated that the grille removal programme was part of its fire safety policy. It explained that grilles prevented a quick escape in the event of a fire, and its request to remove it was part of its duty to protect the safety of the resident. The landlord confirmed it was enforcing a programme of borough-wide grille removals, which includes both leaseholders and tenants. It said that it was its intention to speak with all residents who had any such grilles installed, and it would carry out a further inspection of the estate to ensure that all relevant properties had been identified and notified.
18. The landlord said that, before it arranged to meet with the resident about the matter, all non-emergency in-person visits were suspended due to coronavirus restrictions. It confirmed it could now arrange to meet her as restrictions were lifting, but the grille would still need to be removed following the visit. The landlord said it previously advised the resident of options she may wish to consider, such as intruder alarms or a video doorbell. It also reiterated that the safer neighbourhood team could arrange to visit the resident to discuss further crime prevention measures.
19. The landlord advised the resident of the next steps she could take, if she remained unhappy with its final response.

Assessment and findings

20. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the issue raised has impacted her husband’s health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.
21. In line with the resident’s lease, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including the entrances, passages, landings, staircases and other parts of the building enjoyed or used by the leaseholder in common with others. The resident is responsible for the doors and door frames in her flat. The lease says that the resident shall “not at any time without the licence in writing of the landlord first obtained to make any alteration or addition to the flat either externally or internally”
22. The government published a guide for fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats in 2011. The guide says that the possible conflict between security and fire safety must be taken into account. Any measures taken to restrict access must not prevent people escaping easily in a fire. Residents should be encouraged to make their homes secure and may take their own measures, including fitting additional locks to front doors and installing intruder alarm systems. However, again, care is needed to ensure that any measures taken do not conflict with the need to escape in the event of fire. Where possible, leases should be used to constrain the fitting of excessive security measures, such as grilles, gates and shutters, that might: delay escape by the residents, impinge on the safety of others (e.g. across a common balcony), and prevent access to the fire and rescue service to effect rescue and fight a fire in a flat.
23. On the landlord’s website there is a fire safety fact sheet, showing that security grills/gates are not allowed. It says that residents should not replace or alter their front door without the landlord’s permission as this could reduce the fire protection to their home.  The fire safety fact sheet says that leaseholders have a responsibility for the doors in their home and must comply with fire regulations. The landlord will ask leaseholders to replace their door if it does not comply.
24. The resident has been emphatic in her dealings with the landlord that the adaptation permission she received in 2009/2010 included permission to install the security gate to her front door. However, no evidence has been provided supporting that claim, and if permission had been granted, there would be written evidence of it. Nonetheless, even if permission had been granted, the permission was contingent on the resident maintaining her adaptations in accordance with any changes to the law or building regulations. Additionally, the landlord has discretion to decide to ask the resident to renew some or all the additions in the future, provided it gave its reasons if it decided that was necessary.
25. The landlord explained its reasons for asking the resident to remove the security gate, i.e. due to safety risks it would cause in a fire or other emergency. No evidence has been seen suggesting the resident is being discriminated against, and the landlord’s advice was in line with the fire safety fact sheet on its website, which follows the government’s published guidance for fire safety in blocks of flats. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns about security and advised her who she could contact for information and assistance, and suggested other options such as intruder alarms or video door-bells.
26. Given that the landlord’s request was in line with published guidance, the conditions for adaptation consent (notwithstanding that no evidence has been provided confirming permission was granted for the security gate), and the lease, the landlord has provided clear reasons for its request and has considered and responded to the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s request, and handling of the matter was reasonable..

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

28. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation for its request, which is in line with both government guidance, its own fire safety guidance, the adaptation permission requirements, and the resident’s lease. It also addressed and considered the resident’s security concerns.