Haringey London Borough Council (202114445)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114445

Haringey Council

28 March 2023

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 in respect to fire safety, including delays in identified works to replace the front doors at the resident’s block.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat in a three storey block. It not disputed that under the lease, the landlord is responsible for the front entrance door of the property.
The landlord’s fire safety policy says that it carries out fire risk assessments (FRAs) in line with relevant guidance. The frequency of FRAs at its properties are affected by the height and risk rating, so that FRAs are carried out every three years at low rise buildings; FRAs are carried out annually at high rise buildings of six floors or more or at buildings with a ‘Moderate Risk;’ and FRAs are carried out every three months at buildings with a higher risk such as ‘Substantial’ or ‘Intolerable.’ The policy says that flat doors should give at least 30 minutes fire resistance and that solid timber doors can meet these requirements.
The fire safety policy effective from April 2020 said that residents needed permission from the landlord and building control to replace their front door, but in November 2020 the landlord’s cabinet approved a requirement that works to change a leaseholder’s external doors needed to be carried out by it and its approved contractors. This was due to the landlord’s concern about a lack of consistency in approaches, and its conclusion that this was the best way to ensure the safety of its buildings and residents in this area. Prior to this it consulted with leaseholders as shown by information on its website.
The Government’s guidance on fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats currently notes that the original flat entrance doors in many older blocks will not meet current standards, however in some situations it will be appropriate to accept these as they are, while in others upgrade or replacement will be necessary, which will depend on the risk. The guidance provides scope to retain original doors that do not meet current standards, provided they fit in their frame and are a ‘notional’ fire door, i.e. one that satisfied the standards applicable to fire door resistance at the time of construction. The guidance says that in many existing blocks of flats, it will normally be acceptable, taking into account the fire risk, to accept the existing doors and not replace or upgrade them as a matter of course. The guidance goes on to say that although it may be appropriate to upgrade or replace doors, this does not necessarily mean this work has to be undertaken urgently, and in many blocks of flats the upgrading or replacement of doors can be part of a planned and phased programme.

Summary of events

On 12 March 2019, the landlord carried out a FRA at the resident’s block which found the risk rating to be ‘moderate,’ and said that works listed in the report were recommended to reduce the level of risk to ‘tolerable.’ This included the front entrance doors being found to be “original type timber doors” with Georgian wired glazing, which the ‘actions to be taken’ section said needed to be replaced with “certificated FD30s full door sets.” The FRA gave this action an ‘Ma1 (Urgent management)’ priority, which the FRA stated was for remedial works where an immediate risk to fire safety is not present, but improvements/actions are necessary to maintain the essential systems and standards. The FRA stated that the timescale for remedial works with an ‘Ma1’ priority was one month.
A year later, on 12 March 2020, the landlord carried out a further FRA which restated the previous findings for the front entrance doors and again found the risk rating to be ‘moderate.’
On 11 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s leasehold department. He raised concern that the flat doors had not been replaced within a month as stated in the 2019 FRA, and he queried why the works had not been done and when they would be carried out. He noted that he had not been able to purchase his own door in case this did not meet current fire regulations. He said that in his opinion, the communal front door was also a fire risk and in need of replacement. He asked for the landlord to urgently look into both issues, as he believed both doors presented health and safety risks that could not be ignored. He noted that he had previously sent two letters without any response.
On 16 November 2020, the resident emailed a member of staff. He highlighted the length of time that had passed since it was identified that the front doors needed replacement, and he noted that he had still heard nothing to say when the doors would be replaced. He raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had held a Zoom meeting in which it had forbid leaseholders to replace their own doors (as per the policy change noted at paragraph 4), but it was not prepared to carry out this work itself. He said this meant that leaseholders were unable to keep themselves safe from potential fire risks, which was unacceptable. He requested a firm date for when the work would be completed, otherwise he intended to take the matter to the Regulator for Social Housing and the Health and Safety Executive.
On 9 December 2020, the resident complained to the landlord. He was unhappy about its lack of response to his previous month’s email, and its failure to address a serious fire risk caused by unsafe doors as identified in the 2019 FRA. He explained that he was getting very frustrated that the landlord was allowing residents to be exposed to fire risks and failing to maintain safe standards within its housing stock, which he said was totally irresponsible in light of the Grenfell fire.
The same day, the resident contacted the landlord and requested an up to date FRA, which the landlord supplied, after which he restated his request to be informed why the flat doors had not been replaced and when they would be replaced.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint:
1. It sincerely apologised for the delayed response to the resident’s email, and said it partly upheld the complaint.
2. In regards to the front door, it explained that the front door works were currently on hold, and it was unable to confirm when the major works programme would resume. It explained that under the lease, the flat front entrance door remained the property and responsibility of the freeholder, and in December 2020, it had decided to end a previous policy where leaseholders could replace the front entrance doors themselves.
3. In regards to the external communal entrance door, it said that its stock condition data showed that common entrance doors to the block were due for renewal, and a works programme was being tendered for delivery by March 2022.
On 30 December 2020, in a couple of emails, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint if it was not going to carry out the work immediately. He felt it was unacceptable for the landlord to be failing to replace the doors while also not allowing leaseholders to do the work themselves, effectively forcing tenants to live in unsafe conditions. He asked the landlord to explain why the doors had not been replaced earlier when they had been identified in the 2019 FRA to require replacement by April 2019, nineteen months prior, because they did not meet current standards. He noted previous correspondence he had sent which had failed to result in any action, and he raised concerns about a Registered Provider of Social Housing ignoring actions in FRAs. He said that he wanted to work with the landlord to resolve the issue, but due to the lack of responses he was considering contacting the Health and Safety Executive and the Regulator of Social Housing to request their support. He said that to put things right he wanted the landlord to replace all fire doors immediately, to ensure that residents were safe and knew that their flats were not contravening fire safety standards and putting their lives and those of their families at risk.
Following this, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and internally discussed the issues. It noted that it would bring forward the next FRA to February 2021, and review the timeline for completing the actions on the doors. It initially noted that the resident’s block had three storeys, and relevant guidance said that ‘notional FD30’ doors should be acceptable in blocks of up to four storeys, while blocks up to and over six storeys should be of a ‘FD30S’ type.
On 15 February 2021, the landlord issued its final response:
1. It acknowledged that the resident complained that despite his chasing, it had not addressed the fire safety risk at his block and replaced the doors, following recommendations in the 2019 annual FRA. It apologised for the ongoing delay to replace his flat door and the communal front entrance doors, and noted that it had reviewed a range of information and discussed the complaint with different parties including him.
2. It explained that after the Grenfell fire, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) commenced a programme to test Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) composite doors, which identified a range of different failures to the doors, and led to MHCLG stating that there were systemic problems with some GRP composite fire doors. It explained that at the time of this announcement, its contractors were about to commence major works programmes to replace flat entrance doors with GRP fire doors, for which further investigation was required to ensure the doors met mandatory safety standards. It assured the resident that it was working with contractors to resume the affected works programmes, and said it was unable to specify an exact date but estimated this to be between April and June 2021.
3. It noted that relevant guidance said that ‘notional FD30’ doors should be acceptable in blocks of up to four storeys, and said it would carry out a new FRA in February 2021 and review this to ensure that the notional fire doors currently installed posed no immediate risk.
4. It assured the resident that the safety of its residents was a priority, and that it would roll out door installations when it was certain GRP doors met building safety requirements.
5. It said that the impact of Covid-19 on its services and the issues with the GRP fire doors had contributed to the delays the resident had experienced, and it sincerely apologised for this. It said that it did identify any fault, but it said the previous response could have provided more context and reasons for the delay, and it was making recommendations in respect to communication.
In March 2021, the information provided shows that the landlord was in possession of a new FRA (not supplied) which gave the door replacement an ‘H (High remedial)’ priority, which other FRAs states is for remedial works regarded as important, but where a lead time to organise them is necessary. The other FRAs state that the timescale for remedial works with an ‘H’ priority is three months. The landlord discussed this internally and it was queried whether three months was sufficient to plan and organise replacement doors, bearing in mind a manufacturing timeframe, and it was suggested that three to six months would be more realistic in the current climate.
In September 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said that the works had not been completed by June 2021 as the landlord had stated, and he said he had now lived in a flat with an unacceptable fire risk for two and a half years. He said that this was very stressful and that if there was a fire, all the residents would be at risk due to the lack of adequate fire doors, which could result in serious injury or death. He raised concern that the doors would not be replaced anytime soon, and said that the landlord should replace the doors immediately or permit leaseholders to replace the doors themselves.
In November 2021, the landlord responded to an enquiry from a councillor on the resident’s behalf concerning the overdue installation of the doors. It explained that the block was included in a works programme which was on hold. It said that it was awaiting a door test report, and was also seeking specialist legal advice about restarting the programme or reprocuring under a new contract. It explained that as it was reliant on a third party for the test results and outside legal advice, it was difficult to provide a timescale for the installation of the flat entrance doors, although clarity was expected in 2022.
In February 2022, the landlord provided information towards the Ombudsman’s investigation. It said that the works programme remained on hold while it sought legal advice; leaseholders had been refunded paid contributions toward the works; properties had been inspected to ensure there were no immediate risks; and the fire safety was being monitored as part of the FRA process to reduce unnecessary risks to residents. It was also procuring a new contract with the aim to complete the planned fire safety works in the 2023 or 2024 financial years.
In January 2023, the landlord referred itself to the Regulator for Social Housing, which issued it with a Regulatory Notice in March 2023 for being in breach of standards. The Notice said that a recent external review found that a large number of residential blocks were without a current FRA and very large numbers of fire remedial actions were overdue, of which 4,000 of these were high risk, with over half of these overdue for more than twelve months. It was noted that the landlord had now completed almost all of the FRAs but there remained a high volume of remedial work to complete. The landlord has published a statement which confirms it is working with the Regulator and taking actions in respect to FRAs and fire risk actions.
In February 2023, the annual FRA was carried out at the resident’s block which again found the risk rating to be ‘moderate.’
In March 2023, in response to queries from the Ombudsman, the landlord clarified that the resident’s block was in a programme due to start in 2018, which was then placed on hold due to concerns that the doors being installed did not meet the necessary fire safety specifications. It explained that it had been trying to find a way forward with the contractor since then, but was yet to reach a settlement. It said that as the programme was closed, the outstanding works would either be picked up through a future major works programme or, if works were high priority and could not wait for major works, through a specific fire safety programme. It said that there was no definite date for major works, due to these being reviewed in light of significantly reduced budgets over the next few years.

Assessment and findings

The resident is clearly concerned about health and safety at the block, and has stated that the landlord had failed to address a ‘serious’ fire risk caused by ‘unsafe’ doors. While the Ombudsman can take a view on this, it is not in our jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about building safety or if a landlord has been negligent of this. The fire services are responsible to enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well regulatory standards are being met, including wider fire safety obligations. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice – which this assessment goes on to do.
The front entrance doors at the block have been identified as requiring replacement, and it is evident that FRAs between 2019 and 2021 have recommended replacement in one or three months. The lack of completion of the works within the timeframes that the FRAs recommended is not satisfactory, and it is understandable that the landlord’s ongoing lack of completion of the works will have caused concern and frustration to the resident. The landlord should ensure that it carries out fire safety work within the timeframes recommended by FRAs. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord aimed to include the doors in a works programme, which was suspended due to safety concerns about the new doors which were going to be installed at properties including the resident’s. This is clearly a complex situation for which there may be practical, contractual and financial considerations for the completion of works, which must be challenging for the landlord. The landlord should however ensure that health and safety issues continue to be progressed where applicable, and there is concern about fire safety works simply ceasing.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was issued with a Regulatory Notice by the Regulator for Social Housing in March 2023 in respect to a lack of current FRAs and very large numbers of overdue fire actions. The Regulator is working with the landlord to remedy and resolve these. At the resident’s block, regular FRAs have been carried out, which have never found the fire risk to be substantial or intolerable, and have found the overall fire risk to be ‘moderate.’ The landlord has managed this risk by carrying out annual fire risk assessments in line with its policy. The doors have been stated to be a priority, however it has also been stated that there was not an immediate fire risk and time to organise the works was allowed. The relevant government guidance (noted at paragraph 5) says that such works may not necessarily have to be undertaken urgently, and can form part of a planned and phased programme, for which timeframes do not seem prescriptive. The guidance says that risk may inform the urgency of works and from the overall ‘moderate’ fire risk at the block, it is not clear that the doors are manifestly unsafe. It is therefore not clear that the lack of doors replacement in itself significantly contravenes relevant guidance, or that the original doors remaining has led to a serious fire risk at the block as the resident has stated.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has asked the landlord to permit leaseholders to replace the doors themselves and while this is understandable, the landlord’s position that it does not permit this seems reasonable. This is in line with a policy the landlord adopted in 2020, following consultation with residents and consideration of the issues involved. The Ombudsman recognises that it would be more resolution focused if the landlord had a more nuanced policy which permitted leaseholders to replace doors if certain criteria were fulfilled. However, it is evident that such factors were carefully considered when introducing the policy, and it is recognised that a more nuanced approach might impact the landlord’s stretched resources, and not help avoid the inconsistencies it was seeking to remove with the amendment of the policy.
While the above is the case, there are failings in respect to the landlord meeting its recommended timeframes to replace the doors, and there is concern, as indicated above, about identified fire safety works simply ceasing. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord reported itself to the Regulator about overdue fire safety actions in January 2023 after an external audit. The Ombudsman also notes that by the landlord’s final response in February 2021, the recommended timeframe for the works had been exceeded by almost two years. This shows that the landlord was aware of identified fire safety actions starting to become significantly overdue two years before it referred itself to the Regulator. It is not satisfactory that it was an external audit that prompted the landlord to take more effective action to address the backlog of identified actions that had developed, and that proactive and effective action was not taken earlier based on the internal intelligence and signs already available.
There is also concern about the landlord’s communication to the resident, and potentially other residents, about any outstanding fire safety works. The resident repeatedly voiced strong concern about the safety of the doors, which the landlord did not address in a clear or reassuring way. The landlord referenced ‘notional’ fire doors being acceptable and said it would bring forward and review a FRA to ensure that these currently installed posed no immediate risk, but it is not evident that the landlord updated the resident about this. The landlord could have provided more clear explanation about the risk, under relevant guidelines, about the front doors remaining while awaiting renewal. The landlord could have also provided more explanation about the ‘moderate’ fire risk at the block, what this meant, and any steps it was taking to manage any risk. In addition, the Ombudsman is not party to correspondence the landlord has sent directly to residents about the matters, but we note that the information on its website about fire safety issues and delays seems very limited.
The above leads the Ombudsman to make a finding of maladministration and to make a number of orders and recommendations related to the issues identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling in respect to fire safety, including delays in identified works to replace the front doors at the resident’s block.

Reasons

While it is not clear that the lack of doors replacement contravenes relevant guidance, or the original doors remaining has led to a serious fire risk at the block, the landlord has failed to meet its recommended timeframes to replace the front entrance doors at the resident’s block for a lengthy period of time. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concerns about the doors and the wider fire risk at the block in a clear or reassuring way. There is wider concern about the landlord’s communication to residents about fire safety and delays. There is also concern that the landlord did not use internal intelligence and signs available in 2021, when it issued its final complaint response, to take more proactive and effective action to avoid the overdue fire safety actions for which it reported itself to the Regulator in 2023.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £200 for the distress caused by the delays and its communication.
The landlord to review the current status of the works to replace the front entrance doors at the resident’s block, and ensure these are being appropriately prioritised taking into account the fire risk. The landlord should then write to residents at the block, including the resident, and provide:
1. an update about the status of the works, including the estimated timeframe, and the status of any milestones it needs to reach in order to meet this.
2. explanation and any reassurance about the current risk at the block, including a plain English explanation about the risk related to the front entrance doors.
3. information about when or how residents can obtain further updates.
The landlord should provide evidence that it has taken steps to comply with the above orders within four weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review how proactive, informative, plain English and reassuring its communication to all its residents is about the fire safety and delays. As part of this, it should:
1. consider and implement any improvements in respect to this.
2. review and update information on its website.
3. consider updating all of its residents affected by delayed fire safety works in a similar way to that set out at paragraph 33 of the report.
The landlord to review the suspension of the fire safety works and consider contingencies it can put in place to ensure that in future, identified fire safety works progress appropriately and are not significantly delayed when similar practical and contractual issues arise.
The landlord to review how it uses internal intelligence to identify areas in which to take early, proactive and effective action to ensure it meets its responsibilities.
The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of its intentions in respect to the above recommendations within four weeks of this decision.