Hyde Housing Association Limited (202102289)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102289

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 of:
1. Fire safety concerns and repairs following the removal of smoke detectors.
2. Replacement of the front door of the resident’s flat.
3. Repairs/replacement of the intercom system.
4. Repairs/replacement of the internal communal fire doors.
This report has also considered:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two bedroom flat.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two days and will aim to respond within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint will be escalated to stage two where the landlord will respond within 20 working days. If the above timescales cannot be met the resident will be informed about this and at both stages this would be up to a further 10 working days. .
In terms of priorities for responsive repairs the landlord uses the following categories; emergency repairs, anytime repairs and major repairs. Under emergency repairs, attendance is noted to be within four hours and to make safe within 24 hours and this covers “any repair that is our responsibility under a lease or tenancy agreement and is required in order to sustain the immediate health, safety or security of the resident, or that affects the structure of the building adversely”. Whilst the property will only be made safe at that time follow up works will be completed as anytime repairs if they cannot be completed whilst the contractor is on site. The timescale for anytime repairs is 20 working days.
The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure set out that upon being notified of a repair which was its responsibility the call handler receiving the report from the resident would check to see whether a repair had already been raised. If works had already been raised it should provide the resident with an update on the progress.
In terms of responsibility the landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure set out that contractors were responsible for ensuring that works were completed to the agreed standards and completing them within the agreed timescales.
The landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the building and to make good any defect affecting the structure as well as to keep in good repair and condition the common parts.

Summary

The resident has advised that she first raised an issue with the intercom entry system at the property in April 2020. The resident explained that whilst she could hear the person at the other end, her voice could not be heard by them. She added that she had chased up the matter on a number of occasions since that time and was told that the matter would be looked into. However nothing occurred at that time.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 April 2021. She explained that as no work had been progressed on the intercom issue she had raised a detailed complaint online with the landlord on 4 January 2021.Despite chasing this on a number of occasions she had discovered in March 2021 that the landlord had been unaware that she wished to make a formal complaint. She added when she had called the landlord in April 2021 she was informed that it was five weeks behind in providing complaint responses. The resident added that in addition to complaining about the intercom system she had raised concerns about the fire safety doors not closing and the landlord’s decision to implement a new fire safety policy which involved the removal of smoke alarms in the communal areas. The Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage one response by 12 May 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 April 2021. It apologised for the delay taken in responding back to the resident and stated it would provide the stage one response by 14 May 2021. It set out the nature of the complaint as it understood it. This was to do with:
1. The landlord’s decision to implement a new fire safety policy, which included removing the smoke alarms.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire safety doors, both in the communal areas as well as the resident’s front door.
3. The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the intercom.
4. The level of communication from the landlord, including by contractors and notification to the resident of cancelled appointments.
The resident replied to the landlord on 30 April 2021. She explained that the landlord’s understanding of her complaint appeared to come direct from this Services’ correspondence to it on 28 April 2021 and not based on the detailed complaint which she had made in January 2021. She included the details of the original complaint which she had made which had centred on the issue of the intercom not working properly and the lack of security which she felt as a young single person living on her own. She stated the landlord had been poor in communicating with her and therefore she had to chase it up on occasions for updates. The resident added that she had been informed the issue of the intercom was due to be fixed in May 2021, however when she had called the landlord on 19 April 2021 for an update on this she had not received a call back.
In terms of the other issues which the resident wished to raise these were:
1. The missing smoke alarms in the communal areas. The resident initially noted them missing on 6 March 2021. The landlord’s contractor had attended late that evening after she had raised the matter and had stated he did not have enough smoke alarms to replace them at the time and they would be reinstalled the following day. The resident stated this showed the lack of communication between the landlord and the contractor as it was only after a number of further calls chasing up the matter that she was informed that the removal of the smoke alarms was an arranged/planned removal based on a risk assessment carried out by the landlord as they did not detect fires in the communal areas.
2. The fire action notice sign. The resident explained that she was informed this notice would inform her what to do in the event of a fire, both in her flat and the communal areas. She had reviewed the sign which only related to what to do in the event the fire occurred within the flat. There was nothing in place to direct individuals in the event that a fire broke out in the communal areas.
3. The communal fire doors. The resident stated that whilst the notice sign had confirmed that the walls, floors and doors were all designed to resist fire and smoke. However the fire doors between the stairwells and the individual flats did not close properly. She had informed the landlord as well as making the building manager aware of this issue in December 2020. Whilst she was informed that the communal doors were being replaced and manufactured in February 2021 they had yet to be installed.
4. Her flat’s front door. The resident explained that her door was different to the doors of other flats in the building and she was not certain it was fire proof.
5. If the smoke alarms/detectors were not to be replaced with standard smoke alarms which did the landlord not attempt to make good the areas where they had previously been situated.
The landlord spoke to and sent the resident an acknowledgment of the complaint on 7 May 2021. It summarised the resident’s concerns as being about the fire alarm by the removal of the smoke detectors, concerns about the fire doors on each floor, whether her front door was a fire door and the time taken to fix the intercom. It asked the resident to provide anything further which she wished to add to it within 48 hours. It explained that it would aim to provide a response by 21 May 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 May 2021. She explained the letter sent out by the landlord on 7 May 2021 was an example of one of the many points she had raised with the landlord, that of a lack of communication within the team. She set out that the email she had sent the landlord on 29 April 2021 (which was actually sent on 30 April 2021) had set out the definitive complaint which she was seeking to resolve. She reiterated that she had been given a deadline of 14 May 2021 for the landlord’s response in the earlier emails at the end of April 2021.
The landlord sent a number of internal emails of 21 May 2021. These emails set out that in terms of the intercom system that a section 20 consultation had taken place from 2 February 2021. Following this a change had been approved on 8 April 2021. An order had been made the following day and a booking made for 27 May 2021 to replace the intercom. This would require access to individual flats to change the intercom sets. The emails also addressed the other issues which had been raised by the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2021 to explain that it needed further time to provide a response. It set out that it would respond by 4 June 2021.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 28 May 2021. Whilst this was the date on the letter it was emailed across to the resident on 2 June 2021. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding as it had been dealing with a backlog of communications and it offered an amount of £100 broken down as £50 for the distress and inconvenience of the repair issues and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord explained:
1. The old intercom had to be replaced as it had become obsolete. It added that it had replaced the old system with a new one. The issue had taken time to be “diagnosed and rectified”.
2. In terms of the smoke detectors that whilst it did not see a service failure as a result of removing them, there had been one due to the lack of information provided to residents over the matter.
3. It had spoken to the safer homes team and confirmed that details about the block and fire procedures in place had been provided.
4. It would inspect the resident’s front door to ensure it was safe and adequate. It proposed a date of 11 June 2021 to do this.
The resident replied to the landlord on 4 June 2021. She explained the issues set out by the landlord had not been resolved. The replacement intercom system did not work. She also noted that in replacing the front door of the building there had been damage caused to it which meant the door no longer closed properly. The resident also noted the landlord had not addressed the issue of the internal communal fire doors or the cosmetic damage caused by the removal of the smoke alarms. She requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two. The resident enclosed pictures to show the damage she was referring to.
The landlord sent an internal email on 8 June 2021 to ask for an update on the issues the resident had raised following the stage one response. It set these issues as being:
1. The damage to the main door. It noted this would not be referred to in the stage two response but it still required a date of repair.
2. The intercom not working. Was there any communication with the resident as access to the resident’s flats was required.
3. The communal fire doors not being repaired. It understood the closers and hinges were being changed and asked if anything else was happening to them.
4. Making good the communal areas. Again it noted this would not be in the stage two response but asked if the areas should have been redecorated.
The landlord’s operative visited the resident’s flat on 11 June 2021. It confirmed that the front door was a PVC non fire door set and enquired via an email to the landlord as to whether a new one needed to be ordered.
The landlord’s sent an internal email on 14 June 2021. It confirmed that it was raising an order for a replacement fire door for the resident’s flat. It asked that the resident was informed that the likely installation would take some eight to ten weeks to be done.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2021. She explained that the landlord had up to 5 July 2021 to respond but she had not received the stage two response from it. The Housing Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord on 12 July 2021 to explain that the resident had set out her reasons for escalating the complaint on 4 June 2021. This Service added that under the Complaints Handling Code it required a response to be provided by the landlord within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for the escalation of the complaint on 23 July 2021. It explained it would provide a response by 19 August 2021. It added if it was unable to meet this date it would provide an update to the resident.
The landlord sent an internal email on 27 July 2021 in relation to the issues raised by the resident. It asked for a response to be provided by 10 August 2021. From the records provided by the landlord no response was received by this date and the landlord continued to liaise with the various areas from 13 to 18 August 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 August 2021. It explained it needed a few more days to provide a response. It apologised for the delay. It added that it would respond by 17 September 2021 and that for two weeks up to that date the person dealing with the complaint and responding to the resident would be away on annual leave.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 21 September 2021. It explained that having checked with its contractors that all of the works had either been raised or completed. It offered the resident an amount of £255 which it explained was in line with its compensation policy. An internal email had explained the amount offered comprised £25 for the resident’s patience through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, £50 for time and trouble and for poor communication, £50 for distress and inconvenience, £100 for delays in responding to complaints and repairs and £30 for missed appointments. It provided the resident with a dedicated point of contact who would be overseeing the complaint commitments until it was done. In respect to the resident’s concerns it explained:
1. It had attended the property on 21 August 2021 concerning the intercom. The landlord’s contractor had contacted the resident so that it could test the connection to the flat. Time had been spent resetting and testing this issue before the contractor had left, ensuring it was working.
2. In terms of the front entry door to the property this had been measured as part of the intercom works earlier in the year. However the request had been amended to only upgrade the intercom and to exclude the door from the works. This was as the landlord had been advised that that its responsive contractor had replaced the door under the door and windows program in November 2020. It confirmed that the contractor had attended to ease and adjust the door mechanism to ensure it operated correctly and closed. This had been completed by its operative and no further reports of this being an issue had been raised.
3. In terms of the signage at the property, the property manager had confirmed that the only one in place was a notice in the communal noticeboard. It added that this was not a problem which had been reported to it prior to now. It provided contact details to the resident of the property manager.
4. In terms of the replacement of the internal fire doors it had received a number of quotes. However due to the cost of this it needed to consult with all leaseholders via a section 20 process before anything could be done. This was being done by the Safer Homes Team who following completion of the Section 20 consultation it would be communicating this to the resident.
5. It had progressed the job to replace the resident’s front door. The order for the door had been submitted on 18 August 2021 and whilst the timescales had been 8 to 12 weeks the delivery to the landlord was going to be 22 September 2021. It was able to offer the resident a choice of dates in early October 2021 to get this installed. It asked the resident to let it know which date suited her.
6. It shared the disappointment that the resident had felt with the areas around the smoke alarms not being decorated. It explained that it had raised the matter with its contractor to make good the areas which it understood did not affect the ground floor but only the upper floors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 October 2021. She confirmed that whilst matters were progressing they had not reached the stage where all of the issues had been resolved. The resident added she was happy to provide her bank details to the landlord on the understanding that the case was not considered complete until all of the issue had been resolved. In terms of the issues which remained outstanding these were:
1. The areas damaged by the removal of the smoke detectors. She noted that the matter would be resolved once the scheduled repairs had taken place. She asked for a more specific timeframe as to when this would be done.
2. Her front door. The date for the installation was 6 October 2021. Once this was completed, she considered the matter would be resolved.
3. The internal fire door replacements. She stated that whether they were subject to a section 20 consultation or not the current state of the doors was that they posed a threat of life to both her and other residents. She added that the doors had been installed for a specific reason and they were not fit for purpose in the current state. She added that the landlord’s operative had confirmed that the hatch doors to the meter cupboards did not comply to safety regulations as they were not fire resistant. She considered in the absence of a functioning repair or replacement that the issue remained unresolved.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 October 2021. It stated it completely understood the resident’s concerns. It explained that for all complaint cases it received it made a distinction between the point that it provided the resident with its stage two response and the point at which the complaint was formerly closed. It added it would keep the complaint commitments open until all follow on actions have been completed and it had provided her with a direct point of contact for this.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 November 2021 to ask what timescale was reasonable for repairs to be completed. Whilst the intercom and her flat’s front door had been resolved, the decoration to the areas where the smoke alarms had been fitted as well as the internal fire doors were yet to be resolved. The resident confirmed until the matter was resolved she was not prepared to provide the landlord with her bank details for the compensation which it had offered her. This Service asked the resident to chase up the point of contact which she had been provided with about the matter.
The resident contacted this Service again on 7 December 2021 to ask for an investigation into the complaint which she had made.
The resident has confirmed that the remaining outstanding work to the building had not been completed by the landlord until June 2022. Whilst there had been other issues including to the front door of her flat which no longer closed properly she understood these would not be considered as part of the existing complaint. The resident considered the only outstanding issue was the amount of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident considered an additional award needed to be made for the further time that the complaint had taken to resolve following the issuing of the stage two response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Since the final response from the landlord on 21 September 2021 the resident has raised further issues. These relate to the unresolved works for the decoration to the areas where the smoke detectors were removed, the communal fire doors and to her flat’s front door not closing properly. In terms of these matters the issue with her flat’s front door not closing will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure nor been addressed to the landlord in the first place. However in terms of the other two issues these can be considered as the stage two response and the further communication from the landlord had confirmed that those issues would be resolved shortly. Therefore whilst this investigation cannot consider what happened during the period between the final response and June 2022 in detail, it will consider the overall time taken to resolve these matters.

The landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns and repairs following the removal of smoke detectors.

The landlord has explained that it carried out a risk assessment of the communal areas and that based on this risk assessment it had taken a decision to remove the smoke detectors. The landlord has added that the smoke alarms did not detect smoke but would instead activate an automatic vent, this system was not in place in the property.
The resident had noted the missing smoke alarms in early March 2021. Having been notified of the issue out of hours by the resident the landlord sent a contractor out the same evening. This was a reasonable approach for it to take as the issue would not have necessarily been seen as being an emergency priority by the landlord. The contractor informed the resident that as it did not have enough smoke alarms the job would be passed on to the day team who would attend the next day. The landlord did not update the resident and she had to contact it and chase for a response which was provided to her in April 2021. This delay in providing the update to the resident was a failure on the part of the landlord.
Having made the resident aware of the reasons why the smoke alarms had been removed in April 2021, the repairs to the areas were not completed until June 2022 according to the resident, which in itself was around eight months after the landlord’s final response. Whilst there had been some restrictions in place in early 2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic these restrictions had ended by the time the landlord had originally considered the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not provided its correspondence from the time after the final response had been issued, so it has not be possible to determine why the matter had not been progressed until June 2022.
The extended delay in redecorating the areas where the smoke alarms had been fitted was unacceptable. The landlord in internal emails had confirmed that its contractor who had removed the smoke alarms would not be able to make good the repairs to a decent standard. Whilst the landlord did make an offer of redress of £100 for this matter in the final response which it grouped with other repairs, its award only took into account the delay up to the time that it had issued the final response letter in September 2021. The award did not take into account the further extended delay following the final response until the works were eventually completed. Whilst the landlord may not have known at the time how long the works would take to be done at the point they had been completed it should have looked into whether any further compensation should have been paid to the resident and kept the resident updated. There is no evidence that it did this.

The landlord’s handing of the replacement of the front door of the resident’s flat.

Whilst the resident had initially raised her concerns about the intercom system to the building, it was clear that in making her formal complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2021 she had also raised concerns over her flat’s front door specifically whether or not it was a fire door. The landlord upon being made aware of the issue arranged for an inspection of the resident’s front door and following confirming it was not one, on 11 June 2021 it made arrangements to order a new replacement one which was eventually fitted in October 2021. In inspecting the door the landlord would have required access to the resident’s flat. This was at a time when landlords were still not operating at full staffing capacity due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst the resident was concerned about the door it was functioning at the time, and as a result would not have been classed as an emergency priority by the landlord. However there is a requirement to ensure all front doors are fire doors in order to provide appropriate protection.
The landlord mentioned in the acknowledgment email to the resident of 7 May 2021 that it would be looking into the issue of the resident’s front door which it would refer to the relevant team to deal with. Whilst this was reasonably prompt after being initially made aware of the matter the landlord did not arrange for an inspection to take place until 11 June 2021, which was five weeks after the acknowledgment email. The landlord has been unable to provide any details to explain any delay and the date of inspection was scheduled two weeks after the stage one response was issued. This delay would have caused the resident an element of distress and inconvenience, especially as she was not aware at the time whether or not she had sufficient protection in place in the event a fire had broken out.
Following the inspection of the door the landlord’s communication shows that it did move promptly to arrange for a quote for a replacement door and that this order had been processed by it promptly upon receipt of the quote for the work. Whilst the installation date was not until early October 2021, this was down to the manufacturing and delivery time which were all outside of the control of the landlord. The landlord acted reasonably in providing the resident with a choice of dates for the work to be completed. There does appear to be an issue raised by the resident of the landlord not being aware of the installation date when the resident had contacted the landlord in September 2021. However from the resident’s comments this issue was resolved reasonably promptly by the landlord and the installation took place on the correct date.

The landlord’s handling of repairs/replacement of the intercom system.

The resident stated she had raised concerns about the intercom system originally in April 2020. Whilst a contractor had visited shortly after that time the issue had remained unresolved. Neither party has provided any evidence of a complaint having been raised at the time.
The resident stated that she continued to chase up the matter over the next few months with the landlord and that there were missed appointments made by the landlord’s contractor and the matter remained unresolved with a lack of communication on the matter. The landlord has not provided details of its repair logs showing how often it had visited the building in respect of the issue raised by the resident.
The landlord has explained that the intercom system was obsolete and that as a result it needed to replace it. This would have required a section 20 consultation to have taken place initially which would have taken some time and prolonged the time taken for it to be replaced. This was also at a time during the Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions which were in place. However the time taken to replace the intercom system would have been inconvenient to the resident as callers her to her flat were unable to hear her.
The landlord replaced the intercom system in late May 2021 and the resident had reported that there were still issues with it soon after. The landlord confirmed that it had attended the resident’s flat on 18 August 2021 to reset and test the system and that at this time the resident had been satisfied about the matter. The landlord has not provided any explanation on why, after being made aware of the issue with the new intercom by the resident shortly after issuing the stage one response why the contractor had not attended to resolve the matter. This delay of two and a half months was unacceptable and represented a failure on the part of the landlord.
In addition to the resident having complained about the intercom system not working, she had also complained that the front door to the building did not close properly and there had been damage around the door frame. The landlord explained that the front door had been subject to a replacement under the door and windows program in November 2020 and whilst the landlord’s contractor had measured up the door when it attended the property in 2021 this had been an error and the intercom only had then been subject to a change which itself had required a section 20 consultation which commenced in February 2021. The landlord did ask a contractor to visit the property to change the hinges to allow the door to close properly.
Overall whilst the issue with the intercom had been resolved by the time of the stage two response by the landlord there were gaps during which it was unclear if it had been progressing the matter. The landlord had also failed to adequately communicate with the resident over the issue. Overall this would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience and whilst the landlord made an offer of redress including £30 for missed appointments as well as an amount for repairs which was combined with all of the other failings by the landlord, this was inadequate given the overall time taken to resolve the matter.

The landlord’s handling of repairs/replacement of the internal communal fire doors.

The landlord failed at the time of the stage one response to comment on this issue despite the resident having raised it in her correspondence of 29 April 2021 as part of the complaint. The landlord itself had referred to the matter in the email acknowledgment of 7 May 2021 in which it set out what it believed to be the issues which the resident was raising a complaint about. The landlord did send an internal email on 8 June 2021 about the matter. The landlord in this email accepted that the issue had been omitted and that it understood it would be changing the closers and hinges and enquired to the relevant team as to whether anything else was being done. A further internal email confirmed that if the communal fire doors could not be repaired, if it only affected one or two doors that it could replace them under an ad–hoc replacement order.
Whilst this suggested that the landlord had begun to deal with this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the next reference in the landlord’s correspondence to the communal fire doors was not until 27 July 2021, over six weeks later. At this time the landlord had been chasing a response from its various teams who had been looking into the issues the resident had raised. There was a further gap until 17 August 2021, three weeks later, at which point the landlord stated that it would need to undertake a section 20 consultation on the issue. Given that the replacement of the communal fire doors had affected more than a couple of doors it was reasonable that it required a section 20 consultation process to take place. However the landlord’s actions do not show that it had been actively pursuing the matter from the time that the resident had originally asked for the complaint to be escalated at the beginning of June 2021. Given the doors were warped and were not shutting properly they would have been unable to contain a fire in the event one had broken out. This was a significant failing on the part of the communal doors. However the landlord did not treat the matter urgently and seek regular updates on the issue.

The record keeping.

Very little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to when its operatives had attended the building. Whilst the resident has said in terms of the intercom issues that a number of visits had been booked, some of which were missed there is no details provided of the scheduled appointments that had been booked by the landlord. It referred to the intercom system being unrepairable and obsolete however no notes from the contractors who had attended the building had been provided about the matter. The resident also referred to having called the landlord on many occasions to chase up on matters such as the signage, the intercom and the smoke alarms. However the landlord has not provided any notes of any conversations it may have held with the resident.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests as well as the complaints handling. These are recording failures on the part of the landlord.

The complaints handling.

Whilst the resident has stated she had raised a complaint about the intercom in April 2020 and again online in January 2021, neither party has provided evidence that supports that a complaint had been made at those times. However it is not in dispute that the resident had raised a complaint about the issues on 28 April 2021. This had been sent to the landlord by this Service. The landlord had sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident the following day in which it had informed the resident that she would receive a response by 14 May 2021 which was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However the landlord then sent a further acknowledgment email to the resident on 7 May 2021 in which a different response date of 21 May 2021 was provided. This second acknowledgment was a direct response to the correspondence which had been sent by this Service whereas the earlier one was appear to be in response to an earlier direct contact by the resident.
The resident also asked the landlord to liaise with the person who had provided the first response to get an understanding of the nature of her complaint which it failed to do.
The landlord was unable to meet the deadline for providing the stage one response to the resident but it did in line with the complaints policy provide an update to the resident with a revised deadline for providing the response which it did meet.
The resident replied to the stage one response within two days of receipt of it, on 4 June 2021. Her response in which she set out her dissatisfaction did ask for the matter to be passed to a senior manager. This was therefore a request for escalation to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. However the landlord did not send any acknowledgment to the resident until 23 July 2021, at which point it informed the resident it would aim to provide a response by 19 August 2021. Whilst this was 19 working days from the acknowledgment email, it was a full two and half months since the resident had requested the escalation. Even then the landlord failed to provide a response by that deadline instead taking a further month to do so. This was more than three and a half months since the resident had asked for the escalation.
The stage two response from the landlord did not offer an apology for the delay or for why it had not escalated the complaint when requested to by the resident. Whilst the landlord explained in this letter that it had been carrying out some works such as fixing the issues with the replacement intercom and inspecting and ordering a replacement door for the resident’s flat not all of the resident’s concerns had been resolved. Whilst it was understandable given a section 20 consultation would be required for the communal fire doors that this issue had not been resolved, this would not extend to some of the other issues.
Whilst the landlord did make an increased award of compensation of £255 at stage two no breakdown was provided to the resident to show how the landlord had arrived at this figure. The landlord instead told the resident that the award had been calculated in line with its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns and repairs following the removal of smoke detectors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the replacement of the front door to the resident’s flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of repairs/replacement of the intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of repairs/replacement of the internal communal fire doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to keep the resident aware of why it had removed the smoke alarms initially. In addition the areas where the fire alarms had been fitted had not been made good by the landlord’s contractor and the landlord provided no explanation why this work was not completed until nine months after its final response.
In terms of the resident’s front door the landlord did attend the property to inspect it and promptly ordered a replacement. Although there was a delay until the door was installed this was due to issues such as manufacturing which were outside the control of the landlord.
The landlord failed to update the resident on the intercom issues, namely that it was unrepairable when she had continued to contact it over the matter. Whilst the landlord did replace the system in May 2021, there was still an issue with the resident’s intercom set which was not resolved until August 2021.
Whilst the landlord has explained that the communal fire doors would be subject to a section 20 consultation which had not been commenced at the time of the stage two response, the landlord has not provided any explanation why the matter was not resolved until May 2022, some eight months after the final response letter.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits.
There was a delay at stage two of the complaints process firstly in escalating the matter and also with the time taken to respond. The landlord did not make an apology at this stage nor provide any explanation in terms of the delay. The landlord’s response at stage one was also not appropriate as it did not address all of the issues which the resident had raised. The landlord did make an improved award at stage two however the offer relating to the complaints handling was inappropriate for the length of the delay.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £600, which is in addition to the amount offered in the stage two response, which comprises:
  1. £100 in relation for the delay in it making good the area where the smoke alarms had been fitted.
  2. £150 for the delay taken in resolving the issue with the intercom system.
  3. £100 for the delay taken in resolving the issues with the communal fire doors.
  4. £100 for its failure in its record keeping.
  5. £150 for the failure in its complaints handling.
3. Pay the resident the £255 compensation, if it has not already been paid, which was previously offered by the landlord in the final response letter of 21 September 2021.

Recommendation

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.