Orbit Housing Association Limited (202100415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100415

Orbit Housing Association Limited

22 September 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns regarding the smoke detector system in his property.
2. concerns about the extractor fan in his kitchen.
3. associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 18 October 2020 to report that his smoke detector was not working. He said that the detector had set the fire alarm off on two occasions for no apparent reason. He added that it was set off on 16 October 2020 by normal cooking. This led to the control centre for the building automatically calling the fire brigade. Following this, an engineer had attended, but could not complete a repair as they did not install the system. The control centre was advised to call the company responsible for installing the fire alarm but the resident had not heard anything further. He explained that the alarm system remained faulty and overly sensitive. He also reported that the extractor fan in his kitchen and the button on his telephone unit to allow visitors into the property were not working and needed to be replaced.
The landlord’s records show that it acknowledged the resident’s concern on 21 October 2020 and opened a dissatisfaction case (informal complaint). It noted that this was the second time the resident had requested a repair.
A repair appointment took place on 28 October 2020 and the engineer found no fault with the mains operated smoke detector. The record noted that the resident used a vape, which could also trigger the smoke detectors and cause them to activate.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called again on 3 November 2020 to report that the extractor fan in his kitchen was not working to expectation and he was still experiencing issues with his smoke detectors going off inappropriately. A repair order was raised to repair or replace the extractor fan.
The landlord’s records show that a repair appointment took place on 6 November 2020 to repair or replace the extractor fan. The engineer reported that the extractor fan was working and was as powerful as any replacement would be. However, they said that an extractor fan was needed above the cooker to extract smoke, as the one on the wall was too far away to effectively extract smoke from the cooker. The record shows that a quote for the installation of a cooker hood extraction fan was sent to the landlord, but this job was cancelled as the contractor did not receive a response.
The landlord called the resident on 6 November 2020 to provide an update. It explained that the detectors were wired to the lights so that tenants could not disable the alarms. It confirmed that the engineer had not identified a fault with the alarm system but they had suggested that the resident’s use of a vape may be setting the alarm off. The resident was advised to keep his window open to let the smoke out and not to use his vape near the smoke detectors. The resident disputed that his vape triggered the detector and remained dissatisfied. The landlord advised that the complaint would be closed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2020 and explained the following:
1. He had been advised by engineers visiting his property that there was a potential issue with the wiring of the smoke detector, which was wired to the lighting in his property. He felt that this was contrary to health and safety requirements and meant that he could not switch off the alarm system if there was a false alarm.
2. He added that another engineer had advised that the extractor fan was working correctly but it did not extract smoke as it was a moisture extractor, usually used in bathrooms. He was also advised that the kitchen needed a smoke extractor which removed any smoke and directed it outside.
3. He said that as a resolution to his complaint, the landlord had advised him to cook with his windows open, including during cold temperatures in winter, and that he should desist from vaping inside his flat. He had been told that the wiring was correct and that no changes to the smoke detector system or the extractor in the kitchen would be made.
4. He expressed dissatisfaction that his complaint had been closed as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He added that he was unable to prevent any future false alarms or false alarm call-outs to the fire brigade. He said he was also unable to cook normally in the property or vape inside his flat. He asked the landlord to support him in relocating to another property.
The resident sent a further letter to the landlord on 30 November 2020, explaining that he had not received a response to his previous letter. He repeated his request for the landlord to support him in moving to an alternative property. The resident gave the letter he had written on 9 November 2020 to member of the landlord’s staff on 2 December 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the resident on 14 December 2020 to discuss his complaint in person. The resident again raised his concerns about the wiring of the smoke alarm and the effectiveness of the extractor fan in his kitchen. The resident also asked about relocating to another property and was advised to contact the local authority for information about bidding for properties.
A visit took place to the property on 23 December 2020. The landlord’s records note that the smoke detector had not sounded in three months and that the resident did not close the kitchen door when he cooked. He was advised to do so moving forward. The landlord arranged for the wiring of the smoke detector to be checked. An engineer attended the property on 4 January 2021 to check the wiring from the smoke alarm. They confirmed that the wiring was fine and was not putting the resident at any risk.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and said that the delay was due to staff absence. Regarding the smoke detector in the property, its contractor had advised that it was standard practice to route the wiring of the smoke detectors through the lighting. The contractors found no fault with the detector. They did, however, notice that a vape was being used in the property which could have caused the detector to activate. The landlord noted that in a call on 6 November 2020, the resident was advised to possibly keep his windows open to let the smoke out and not use the vape near the detector, it noted that the resident had disputed this. It said it would not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint as no fault had been found with the smoke detector.
2. Regarding the extractor fan, it had found that following a visit on 6 November 2020, the fan was powerful enough and that the property would not benefit further should it be replaced with a newer fan. The landlord added that it would not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint based on the information provided by the contractors on 6 November 2020.
3. Regarding the resident’s transfer request, it explained that it had previously provided correct information to the resident. It advised the resident that he would need to approach the local authority and register to bid on alternative properties. Alternatively, he could consider a home swap, where he could legally swap properties with another tenant of an eligible property. it added that both options were subject to the resident being eligible. The landlord explained that it would not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint as he was provided with the correct advice.
4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and said that it had provided correct information and acted in line with its policies. It explained that the resident could escalate his complaint further should he remain dissatisfied with its response.
The resident requested for his complaint to be escalated on 2 February 2021 for the following reasons:
1. He explained that the landlord had not addressed the main aspect of his complaint; that it had imposed unacceptable living conditions as a substitute to resolving his complaint. He had been told not to vape in his flat and to cook with all windows open, which he did not feel was acceptable.
2. He did not agree with the contractors’ statement that there was no fault with the smoke detector system and added that the cause of the intermittent malfunction had not been identified or rectified. He explained that two operatives had attended his property and the first operative had informed him that the system had been incorrectly wired.
3. He had requested for his kitchen extractor fan to be replaced to stop the detector from going off. He disagreed with the engineer’s statement that the fan was powerful enough as the same engineer had said that the fan fitted in the kitchen was not a smoke extractor fan but a moisture extractor fan, intended for bathroom rather than kitchen use. The resident was told that this would be reported to the landlord and it would be recommended that this fan was replaced with one that extracted smoke. He asked for a copy of the engineer’s report to substantiate the landlord’s statement. He noted that others had visited the property and confirmed that the extractor did not appear to remove smoke from the kitchen.
4. He added that he was disappointed with the landlord’s position and was dissatisfied that it had made no attempt to retract the unacceptable living conditions it had imposed. He explained that he had proposed a property transfer as a potential solution but noted that this would not resolve the issues he currently faced.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 9 February 2021 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied as he felt it was inflicting inappropriate restrictions on his life. It explained that contractors had visited the property to review the smoke detector and confirmed that there was no fault in the system. It had been advised that the use of a vape within the property could be causing the detector activations. The resident was advised to open windows whilst cooking to prevent steam entering the adjoining lounge and activating the detector. It explained that this was not to inflict restrictions but to support the resident in resolving the issue as there was no fault with the smoke detector system.
2. It confirmed that it had given the correct advice in relation to the resident’s request for a property transfer and it agreed with the outcome of its stage one complaint response. It confirmed that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
As part of his referral to this Service, the resident explained that he remained dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to identify and rectify the fault with his smoke detector system despite sending three operatives. He was unhappy that the landlord had refused to replace the extractor fan in his kitchen despite being told by an engineer that it was not fit for purpose. He added that instead of correctly rectifying his complaint, he felt that the landlord had imposed unacceptable living conditions on him to try to rectify the smoke issue. He felt that this was a breach of his tenancy agreement which rendered it void. In his communication with the landlord, the resident proposed a property transfer as a potential solution to the issues he was facing. He has confirmed that this did not form part of his complaint and, therefore, the advice provided to the resident about the transfer will not be considered as part of this report.
Following contact from this Service in September 2021, the landlord confirmed that it was now planning to install a cooker hood extraction fan in the resident’s kitchen and the contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange for this to be installed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the smoke detector system in his property.

The landlord’s tenancy handbook confirms that if a resident has an automatic fire panel which covers the communal building, the resident will have detectors and sounders in their flat. The landlord would be responsible for checking these regularly to ensure that they are working for the resident’s safety.
Following the resident’s reports that his smoke detector was sounding without any apparent reason, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the detection system to be checked. In this case, there was a slight delay in initially checking the smoke detection system as the contractor who attended on 20 October 2020 had not installed the system and this was referred to another company.
The smoke alarm system was checked on 28 October 2020 and 23 December 2020. On both occasions the engineer found no fault with the alarm system. The resident also questioned the wiring of the system and expressed concern that this was wired into his lighting which might have triggered the fire detection system. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation and said that this was a standard practice. Wiring the detectors in this way prevented residents from isolating the smoke detectors which would be a health and safety risk. The resident disagrees and feels that the issue with the detectors has not been identified. The landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the smoke detection system was not in need of repair. Accordingly, it has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and would not be expected to replace or re-wire the detectors if there was no fault.
Given that there was no fault identified, it was reasonable for the engineer to consider that something else must be setting off the alarm and identified that the resident used a vape in the property. The resident has expressed concern that his tenancy agreement had been breached by the landlord as it had imposed certain conditions on his lifestyle whilst using the property. He said that he had been told to cook with his windows open at all times in all weather conditions and had been told not to vape inside of the property.
The landlord’s internal records and responses to the resident suggest that he was advised to not use his vape near the detectors and to open the windows to allow the smoke to leave the property. He was also advised to close his kitchen door when cooking. Given that no fault had been identified with the smoke detector, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident on how to reduce potential false alarms. The resident is not obliged to follow this advice and the landlord has not said his tenancy would be affected if he does not follow the advice. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had imposed any restrictions on the resident which would affect the terms of his tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the extractor fan in his kitchen.

The resident initially raised concerns that the extractor fan in his kitchen was not working effectively on 18 October 2020, he reported this again on 3 November 2020. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for this to be checked on 6 November 2020. However, it failed to acknowledge and address the engineer’s recommendation that that a cooker hood extractor fan was installed above the resident’s cooker to effectively extract any smoke.
The landlord was correct in saying that the engineer had reported that the current extractor fan was working as well as it could and it would not benefit the resident to have this replaced. However, the landlord should have either followed the engineer’s recommendation in November 2020 or explained clearly why it was not going to follow it. The landlord would not be obliged to follow the recommendation if it was not practical to do so or if it considered that another option may provide a better solution, but if so, it would be expected to explain its decision to the resident. The landlord has now confirmed that it has accepted this recommendation and would be looking to install a cooker hood extractor in the resident’s kitchen.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the extractor fan in his kitchen. Whilst it has now agreed to complete the work, there was a lengthy delay in addressing the recommendation made by the engineer on 6 November 2020 and the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why it did not consider this recommendation sooner. The landlord should offer compensation to the resident, as set out below, for the inconvenience caused by not addressing this recommendation in November 2020, despite his ongoing complaint. The landlord should contact the resident within four weeks to arrange the installation of the cooker hood extraction fan if this has not already been done.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that when a resident raises a concern, it should first be dealt with as a “dissatisfaction”. It confirms that the concern should be investigated and the resident should be contacted regularly with updates. If the resident is satisfied with the investigation and resolution the case can be closed. If the resident remains dissatisfied, a formal stage one complaint can be opened. A stage one complaint should be acknowledged in writing within three working days and a response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. At stage two a response should be issued within 20 working days. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint in its complaint responses.
In this case, the landlord closed the resident’s dissatisfaction case on 6 November 2020, despite the resident stating that he was not satisfied with its initial response. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states that the complaint should be escalated to stage one if the dissatisfaction case is unresolved.
There was also a delay in issuing a stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord has acknowledged this and explained that this was due to staff absence. This explanation was not reasonable as the landlord should have processes in place to prevent delays to the complaints procedure where there are staff absences. Furthermore, it did not keep the resident updated regarding the potential delay or say when he would be likely to receive a response which is likely to have caused the resident worry and inconvenience.
In his escalation request, the resident asked for evidence of the report submitted by the engineer on 6 November 2020 and raised further concern that the current extractor did not remove smoke from the kitchen. The landlord failed to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage two complaint response.
in summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord closed the resident’s dissatisfaction case despite his stating that he remained dissatisfied. There was also a delay in issuing a stage one complaint response and the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the extractor fan in his kitchen in its stage two response. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused and the time and trouble he spent pursuing the complaint. It is also recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that policies are followed where there is any staff absence.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the smoke detector system in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the extractor fan in his kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to check the resident’s smoke detector and wiring and found no fault. It was also reasonable for the landlord to give advice on how to reduce false alarms by advising the resident not to use his vape near the detectors and to open the windows to allow the smoke to leave the property. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had imposed any restrictions on the resident’s use of the property, although it has given him advice.
The landlord did not acknowledge or address the recommendation given by the contractor on 6 November 2020 or explain why it would or would not install a cooker hood extractor fan at the time. Whilst the landlord has now accepted this recommendation, there was a lack of communication and an unexplained delay in actioning this.
The landlord closed the resident’s dissatisfaction case despite his advice that he was dissatisfied with the outcome. There was also a delay in providing a stage one complaint response to the resident and no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of the potential delay in advance. The landlord’s explanation that this was due to staff absence was not reasonable. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s ongoing concern about the extractor fan in his kitchen at stage two of its complaints process.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £350, comprised of:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to address the recommendation given by the contractor in November 2020.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience caused because of its poor complaint handling.
2. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange the installation of the cooker hood extraction fan unless this has already been installed.

Recommendations

It is also recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that policies are followed for responding to complaints where there is any staff absence.