Newlon Housing Trust (202014809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014809

Newlon Housing Trust

29 July 2022

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 residents’ report about a hole in the ceiling of the communal space beneath their flat.
2. Handling of the residents’ reports regarding fire and electrical safety.
3. Response to the residents’ dissatisfaction about the complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident and the joint resident are both assured tenants of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in June 2012. The resident and the joint tenant have both corresponded with the landlord about the complaint.
The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including internal walls, floors and ceilings, plasterwork, boundary walls and fences. It is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order installations which supply electricity including electric wiring. It is responsible for repairs to the common parts, specifically to take reasonable care to keep the common halls, passageways and other common parts including electrical lighting in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident and other occupiers of the premises.
The repair policy sets out the landlord’s timescales for urgent and routine repairs (within 20 working days and within an average of 10 working days). Non urgent work (such as repairs to plaster on ceilings and walls) may take up to 28 days.
The fire risk assessment procedure states that the landlord should carry out and regularly review a fire risk assessment of the premises, inform residents of identified risks and put in place measures to remove or reduce risk to life.
The electrical safety policy guides the landlord’s practice in ensuring the safety of fixed electrical installations in its properties. The landlord is required to ensure electrical installation in a rented property is maintained in a safe condition and appropriately skilled and competent persons should carry out electrical inspection and testing.
The compensation policy sets out the guidelines which regulate the landlord’s approach to compensation. The policy amounts in respect of missed appointments are £25, and this is also the case for failure to reply to correspondence, poor communication or failure to meet published timescales.

Summary of events

On 17 February 2020 the landlord raised an emergency work order following a report received on the same day about a hole in the communal hallway ceiling, beneath the residents’ flat. The hole was described as big enough to see the residents’ flat from the communal hallway and there was a request for the contractor to attend and make safe.
On 20 February 2020 the contractor attended but reported no access. It updated the landlord the following day on 21 February 2020.
On 21 February 2020 the resident also reported to the landlord that no one attended to address the repair as planned on 20 February 2020. In their email, the residents described the issue as a fire hazard.
The landlord contacted the residents on the same day and confirmed that it was not a fire safety concern; it said that the job had been sent to the wrong contractor and that the right contractor needed to repair the ceiling hole (21 February 2020).
On 24 February 2020 another visit was made by a contractor who reported back that the work was not within their remit and it was not a fire safety concern. It advised the landlord on the next step (to seal the hole).
On 25 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident and explained that the matter was not a fire safety breach and that it was planning to make good the repair to the hole in the ceiling. It explained that the hole was from a previous light fitting and did not pose a fire safety risk.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said that the hole was connected to historical building work carried out by the landlord’s contractor in connection with a downstairs flat. However, it is unclear if this was discussed with the landlord at the time and evidence surrounding the historical context of the repair has not been seen. At the time, the resident emailed the landlord and said that the repair breached fire safety requirements and asked to escalate the complaint (4 March 2020).
On 17 March 2020 the landlord’s operative repaired the hole.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord emailed the resident in response to the escalation request and explained that it had not previously logged a formal complaint. It said that the previous correspondence to the resident was given as an update and not a stage one response. It explained that it would get back to the resident.
On 17 April 2020 the landlord contacted the resident with a formal complaint response (stage one).
1. It apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction.
2. It said that a repair job was raised on 17 February 2020 following reports of a hole in the communal ceiling which was large enough to show the hallway of the property above it.
3. Follow on works were needed and a specialist contractor was required; a second job was raised for 19 February 2020 for completion within 20 days. This was completed on 17 March 2020. It asked the resident to let it know if this was not the case so it could chase the contractor.
4. It provided details of the next available steps in the complaint process.
On 20 April 2020, after the landlord’s stage one response, the residents contacted the landlord and asked to escalate the complaint. The residents said:
1. The property was left in a hazardous condition.
2. There had been exposed wiring in the communal hallway and a hole in the communal ceiling which lead to the resident’s living room floor. The living room floorboards were visible from the hole in the communal ceiling.
3. The repair was reported on 16 February 2020 and no works took place on 17 February 2020.
4. There were ‘poor patch repairs’ to the defect on 17 March 2020 and the resident disputed that the repairs were properly carried out, or that the ceiling was made safe. The resident reported that the light was left hanging from the ceiling and electrical wiring had been exposed. The resident reported that the light did not work properly and decoration had not been completed.
According to the resident’s correspondence about the repair, the light was reattached to the ceiling on 9 July 2020 after the hole had been sealed.
On 17 November 2020 the residents contacted the landlord about the outstanding stage two response. They told the landlord that ‘the defects and necessary safety repairs have not been done’ and ‘remedial works are urgently needed’. The residents requested for the landlord to consider its handling of the repair, the delays and the ‘failure to attend and failure to properly make good the fire safety defects’.
On 19 November 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication and that the resident was awaiting a response.
On 18 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the outstanding complaint.
Two months later, on 19 February 202,1 the residents contacted the Ombudsman about the complaint. The resident stated that the complaint was about a fire defect in the communal hallway caused by contractors punching a hole in the property below and running an electric cable under the resident’s floorboards to the hallway. The resident said that this ‘breaches the fire partitioning’ between the properties and the communal hallway. The resident said that following the initial reports they had made, there were ‘poor patch repairs’ to the hole and the light had been left ‘dangling in a dangerous manner with electrical cables exposed’. The resident reported that the landlord had not repaired the defect and the route of the wiring.
On 17 March 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to highlight the resident’s complaint and encourage local resolution.
On 22 March 2021 the resident’s submission to the Ombudsman states that they contacted the landlord to report that smoke alarms were being set off due to smoke entering the property through the floors. The resident told the Ombudsman that they wanted a surveyor inspection for the holes in the communal ceiling and also in the walls of the flat below.
On 12 April 2021 the resident reported that they had not had a response and wanted to escalate the matter.
On 29 April 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and requested that it provide a response to the complaint within 5 working days.
On 6 May 2021 the Ombudsman called the landlord to remind it that its response was due on 7 May 2021.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord explained that the original complaint had been raised in the resident’s partner’s name and there was some confusion over the complaints which had been escalated. The landlord explained that the resident and her partner had multiple open complaints and there were cross complaints. It explained that it had escalated the complaint about the electrical wiring and communal ceiling and would provide the resident with a response within 20 working days.
On 10 May 2021 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord with a review of the communication it had with it previously and disputed that further 20 working days was appropriate to respond to the complaint at hand. It requested that the landlord provide its response within 5 working days.
Following reports from the resident that the landlord had not responded, the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order on 20 May 2021 with the order that the landlord provide its stage two response by 27 May 2021.
On 25 May 2021 the resident stated in submission to the Ombudsman that the landlord visited the property. According to the resident, the landlord said that it was ok for smoke to come up through the floors and walls, mocked the resident in a funny voice and threatened the resident. There is no evidence to show that these allegations about staff were reported to the landlord at the time.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 May 2021.
1. It referred to the stage one response of 17 April 2020 and the resident’s appeal of 20 April 2020 in which the resident disputed that the works to the hole had taken place and that these were safe.
2. It acknowledged that there had been a missed appointment for the hole repair on 17 February 2020 and it explained that the job had been incorrectly assigned to the fire safety team rather than the contractor to attend to repair the roof.
3. It said that on 17 March 2021 (2020) the holes in the ceiling were confirmed as attended to and fully sealed. It iterated the view that this was not a fire safety breach, but it accepted that the holes should not have been left exposed and should have been sealed sooner.
4. It apologised for the delay in its response. It acknowledged failures in the complaint handling including the incorrect administration. It explained that communication had been assigned to work orders rather than the complaint file. It set out the result of the errors, such as the resident being left an unacceptably long period without a response or complaint outcome.
5. It said that the repair teams confirmed that the repairs were completed and invited the resident to let it know if he still disputed this.
6. It set out the compensation award of £225 and broke this down as £25 for the initial failure in the operative leaving the holes exposed, £25 for a missed appointment, £25 in delays to seal the hole, £25 for the initial complaint being incorrectly assigned and £125 for the delay between the resident’s the escalation of the complaint and the final outcome.
On 13 August 2021 the residents referred the matter to the Ombudsman and outlined the outstanding concerns about the fire safety caused by re-wiring and refurbished electrics in the building.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation is from February 2020 – May 2021.
In respect of the hole in the ceiling beneath the residents’ property, this was located on another floor and next to another resident’s property. Once notified of the hole in February 2020, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange a repair (March 2020). The repair notes reflect that the contractor initially reported access issues, and then subsequent contractors reported that this had been incorrectly allocated as it was not a fire safety issue, but required sealing. The landlord acted on the advice of its contractor and arranged for the hole to be sealed. This took place on 17 March 2020, although the resident explained that the light fitting was not fixed back into place until July 2020 and the light had not been working during that time.
The resident chased the response to the repair in February and April, and this was completed in March and July 2020. The resident experienced time and trouble. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays caused and offered £75 compensation in total. It offered a breakdown of its calculation comprised of £25 for the initial failure of its contractor leaving the holes exposed, then £25 for the missed appointment to complete the repair, and a further £25 for the delay in returning to seal the holes. This was reasonable as it was in line with the amounts under its compensation policy for failure to meet timescales or missed appointments. It was also proportional to the detriment caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the delays in its response to the resident’s report about the repair to the hole.
The outstanding dispute was about whether the landlord had remedied the reported fire safety breaches. Specifically, the residents disputed that historical wiring had been carried out to the appropriate fire safety standards and also raised concern about the ‘compartmentalisation’ requirements between their property and the communal space beneath. They reported that their smoke alarms inside of their property would activate due to the ingress of smoke from the hole.
The ombudsman is unable to offer expert advice or opinion over a dispute over the fire safety of the repair. It has considered the landlord’s actions in responding to this report by the resident.
The landlord was initially advised in the work order feedback that the issue was not for the fire safety team. The landlord relied on the opinion of its building service team and work notes of its contractors to dispute the resident’s concerns about fire safety.
It would generally be reasonable for the landlord to rely on expert opinion, notwithstanding a resident’s continued dissatisfaction. However, in this case, the landlord’s decision making and engagement with its fire safety officer or expert has not been clearly evidenced. The landlord has consistently disputed the resident’s concern, but it has not evidenced that it took reasonable steps to satisfy itself.
In addition, the landlord was aware from the resident’s persistent communication that this was a source of distress for them. They requested specific kinds of fire assessments and communicated their views about fire standards.
It would have been resolution focused for the landlord to communicate its obligations in respect of fire safety assessments for the building and then explain how it had met these to the resident. For example, it could have pointed to the fire safety requirements which it operated under and reassured the resident that these had been met, as it evidently considered this to be the case.
In respect of complaint handling, the landlord was subject to a CHFO due to the delay in bringing the matter to a close by issuing a final response letter within an appropriate timescale. Following this the landlord complied with the timescales ordered by the Ombudsman and it also took appropriate steps to identify failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord established that there had been an administrative error in how it assigned the resident’s complaint and went on to provide an acknowledgement of the impact of this on the resident. It identified a failure in the delays experienced by the resident in getting a response to their communication and a complaint outcome. It explained the findings of its investigation, the learning from the case (that this initiated a review of the complaint handling) and it apologised. In addition, it went on to provide compensation for the delays and offered a breakdown of its total offer of £150: £125 for the delay in escalating the complaint and £25 for the initial delays in assigning the complaint. This compensation was in line with the compensation policy amounts. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns about fire and electrical safety.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of:
1. The landlord’s response to the residents’ report about the hole in the communal ceiling beneath his flat.
2. The complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not reasonably demonstrate that it engaged with the resident’s concerns with reference to appropriate expert opinion or by explaining its obligations and how it had met them; it disputed the resident’s concerns from the outset without substantiating its position.
The landlord identified a failure in the delays to the repair and the complaint handling and awarded compensation in line with its relevant policy.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience in how it handled the reports about the fire and electric safety.
2. Provide a response in writing to the residents’ reports about the fire and electric safety, highlighting its fire risk assessment obligations and how it has met these.

Recommendation

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the redress of £225 for the acknowledged failures in its response to the repair and the complaint handling (if this has not already been paid).