Housing 21 (202017589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017589

Housing 21

25 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Concerns about Covid-19 advice and safety.
2. Concerns about fire safety due to fire doors being left propped open.
3. Concerns about the costs of a handy person service.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a two- bedroom flat.
The landlord provides retirement living and extra care for older people.
When the pandemic commenced the landlord wrote to residents on 9 March 2020 about how to cope during these times. Following this on 17 March 2020, the landlord issued advice on covid to all residents. On 24 March 2020, the landlord provided further advice on how to deal with and reduce transmission of covid-19.
Following this in April it was arranged for a fire risk assessment to be conducted of the property to ensure residents were safe.
The resident states on 29 September 2020 the landlord had made its residents aware that there would be a change in service charge costs, as it had hired a handy person to take care of various work around the property.
On 5 November 2020, amid new guidance from government about Covid-19 the landlord updated its residents and sent out flyers. The resident was unhappy that this was unsigned.
On 18 February 2021, the resident had raised a complaint about the following:
1. The housing manager not being aware that he had been admitted to hospital in July 2016.
2. In 2015, the resident stated the landlord failed to get the residents disease right.
3. The resident’s letters were not responded to.
4. The resident had raised a formal complaint on 27th August 2020, however this was not responded to.
5. The fire doors are kept open with management knowledge.
6. The resident was informed operatives would visit on 14 and 28 August 2020 and 23 September 2020, but nobody arrived.
7. He was informed he would be visited by contractors from 7 September 2020 until Friday 8 October 2020.
8. The landlord said that a letter he wrote on 14 July was written on 20 July and maintained that shielding ended in August 2020.
9. A contractor attended the property without personal protection equipment.
10. He was unhappy with the cost of the Handy Person service.
11. Covid 19 New Government Guidelines were issued by the landlord but not signed.
12. A staff member told the resident verbally that she did not see any need for Covid testing, when he asked her for the date of her last test.
13. In February there were no Covid testing kits available, from the onsite care provider.
14. The owner of a French registered car was living at the residence and landlord was aware of this.
On 4 March 2021 the landlord conducted a fire risk assessment. It was concluded that the property was safe.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 March 2021. It explained that:
1. Its housing manager had not been aware that the resident had been admitted to hospital. The resident was provided with a full explanation in August 2018.
2. It was unable to comment on the resident’s upset about not being diagnosed correctly as this was a complaint for the local authority.
3. It explained it met with the resident and discussed concerns at length and believed his concerns had been addressed. It apologised that the resident did not feel this way and said in future it would follow up with a written response.
4. It explained it did not receive the resident’s complaint letter dated 27 August 2020.
5. In regard to the fire doors being left open, it explained that devices have been installed on the door in an effort to resolve the numerous concerns about airflow. It also explained how the devices operated in conjunction with the fire alarm system.
6. It states operatives attended the property on 7 August, but the resident refused entry. It acknowledged that operatives failed to attend on 28 August and did not inform the landlord. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
7. A letter was sent to residents stating that contractors would be on site from 7-18 September and 28 September to 8 October. It explained the work required in each property would take up to 2 hours which is why they required a range of dates to accommodate all properties.
8. The landlord apologised for saying the resident’s letter was dated 20 July and explained this is when it received it. At the time of writing to the resident on 11 August 2020, shielding had ended, but this was reintroduced later in the year.
9. The landlord stated that all contractors are required to wear PPE and are not given access without this. It apologised and said it would address this directly with the contractor.
10. The landlord explained the rent had been reduced and a handy man would be able to do various jobs in the hope it would reduce further repairs costs for residents. It explained the decision to hire was following a full consultation with the majority of residents.
11. The landlord explained that the document not signed was a flyer and sent to keep residents informed of changes in government advice.
12. The landlord stated that its staff member did not feel she needed to be tested because she had no symptoms and had not been in contact with anyone with a confirmed case of covid.
13. The landlord explained that it had not received testing kits, and is unable to comment on why these had not been received.
14. The landlord explained it knew who the car belonged to, and it had a right to be in the car park. It was confirmed it did not belong to any one outside the UK.
Subsequently on 2 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained that there was nothing it could do to resolve his concerns as it felt that these had all previously been addressed. The landlord also explained that there were a number of issues relating to local authority and care providers which is not within its remit to comment on, should he wish to take these further he would be required to raised complaints with those parties.
As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was sent to this service for adjudication.
On 24 November 2021 and 1 December 2021, this service confirmed with the resident that his outstanding complaint was about concerns about Covid-19 advice and safety, concerns about fire safety and concerns about the cost of the handy person. As such, whilst it is noted that his original complaint covered a number of issues, this investigation has only considered the issues that were confirmed as outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about Covid-19 advice and safety.

This service has reviewed if the landlord did not act in accordance with its Covid-19 operational guidance and the resident’s safety concerns.
The resident states that he received a letter from the landlord on 9 March 2020, explaining how residents were to cope with covid-19. Following new government guidelines on 5 November 2020, this was issued to all residents. However, the resident was unhappy that the landlord did not sign this guidance.
This service has reviewed the evidence, and on several occasions the resident has confirmed the landlord wrote to advise about how to cope with covid, the implications and how to reduce transmission. Whilst the resident has expressed upset about the guidance not containing a signature, this service has not seen any evidence to suggest the landlord was required to sign this or that it did not act in accordance with its policies by not signing. This service has also seen evidence that this was a flyer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was proactive in keeping residents informed and updated to help them stay safe during uncertain times.
The resident also expressed upset that a member of landlord staff did not feel covid testing was necessary and that a contractor had arrived at the property without the correct personal protective equipment.
This service has seen evidence to show that when the pandemic arose, the landlord put measures in place to ensure all its staff were following control measures to mitigate risks. The measures can be found under its operational guidance and Covid-19 working safely assessment. Part of these measures were that contractors and staff were required to wear PPE. The landlord has apologised if its contractor had not worn PPE and explained that it would be feeding this information back and this would not happen in the future.
This service is aware that throughout the pandemic there was a shortage of PPE, and this was known to have affected care homes and other services. However, this service understand show not wearing PPE would have caused concerns to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the contractor did not adhere to the landlord’s guidelines, however once made aware of this the landlord took appropriate steps by raising this with the contractor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to fire doors being left propped open.

The resident expressed to the landlord that he was unhappy the stair fire doors are kept open with management knowledge.
In response to this, the landlord has stated the fire doors at the top of the stairwell are held open during the day with Dorgard devices. These doors do not stay open overnight as they have an automatic release at 10pm and cannot be operational until 6am. The landlord explained that this worked in conjunction with its fire alarm system. In the event of a fire alarm activation, the doors would release. The landlord said the devices were installed, following numerous concerns that residents had raised, regarding the temperature within the building and have been successful in reducing this. The landlord has also offered to provide the resident with a demonstration but this was declined.
This service notes that a Dorgard enables landlords to keep fire doors open legally and safely.
The fire safety management policy state that the landlord ensures routinely daily, weekly, and monthly checks are conducted and recorded. In light of this service reviewing the annual fire safety reports, there are no concerns raised in relation to the fire doors being left opened using Dorgard devices. It had stated that the risk was low.
Whilst this service understands the res concerns, the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to how the Dorgards work and there are no concerns noted in the annual fire safety report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the costs of a handy person service.

The resident was unhappy that landlord had hired a handy person for the estate. He feels that he was being exploited and says he will not pay for the handyperson service.
This service has reviewed the service charge policy. Section 5 policy explains that residents are expected to pay service charge. This entails the running costs, support charge and utility charge. In this instance the cost of a handy person would be considered within the service charge and is split equally between residents.
Section 2 of the policy states the landlord will aim to consult residents where new or extended services are to be introduced, which will result in a new or increased charge.
This housing 21 choices policy also states that, ‘sometimes a choice or decision has to be made by the landlord and cannot be given to an individual or the court as a collective’. This service reviewed this policy, and it states that the landlord will consider availability of suitable staff, the cost, and any other contractual requirements.
The evidence shows that on 29 September 2020 the resident received an update regarding handman services, he was advised the cost of this is £3.88per week and a total of £186.24 a year. As it is confirmed the landlord did consult with the majority of residents prior to this and updated all residents, it acted in line with its guidelines and procedures.
The landlord has stated that consultation was carried out with the majority of residents and the agreement was made in line with the landlord’s choice and consensus policy. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this policy gives the landlord the discretion to hire staff. The landlord was proactive in keeping residents informed and the costs as a result are not unreasonable.
This service has considered if the landlord had acted in accordance with its guidelines and is of the view that it did. However, should the resident wish to have a binding decision on whether the level of service charge is reasonable, he would need to refer this matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is because, whilst the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about this matter and offer an opinion on the disputed charges, the First Tier Tribunal is the body that can make a formal decision on whether a charge is reasonable and issue a decision which is binding on the parties.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about Covid-19 advice and safety.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to fire doors being left propped open.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the costs of a handy person service.

Reasons

Although there was service failure by its contractors the landlord was proactive in provided the resident with an apology. Other than this, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did not follow covid safety measures.
The landlord had placed the Dorgard device, in order to resolve the previous matter of air flow within the residence. There is no evidence to suggest that the device causes a fire safety concern and the matter had been reviewed under the landlord’s fire risk assessment.
The landlord followed the correct procedures of consulting with residents about the hire of a handy man. It is within its discretion to hire staff as it sees fit and provided a reasonable explanation of its position in response to the resident’s concerns.