Southern Housing Group Limited (202120411)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120411

Southern Housing Group Limited

26 April 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The replacement of fire safety doors.
2. The resident’s reports about the conduct of workmen.
3. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a house owned by the landlord.

Fire safety doors

On 10 November 2020, the landlord undertook a fire risk assessment at the property. The significant findings included that both flat entrance doors should be replaced with FD30s self-closing fire doors. This was marked as a medium risk. The report detailed that for a medium risk “it is essential that efforts are made to reduce the risk. Risk reduction measures should be implemented within a defined time period”. The report listed 10 February 2021 as the date by which the action was due.
On 7 March 2021, the landlord undertook a further inspection at the property. This confirmed that the internal fire door to the neighbour’s flat was disconnected from the door closer. The resident was concerned regarding the safety of his family and that the door slammed in the current condition, causing noise disturbance to his family.
In his complaint to the landlord, on 5 April 2021, the resident stated that the neighbour had indicated to the fire officer that she did not want a door closer and would again remove it if one was installed. The resident stated that he had complained to the landlord about the removal back in 2019 but nothing had been done. The resident asked a number of questions relating to the fire regulations and queried why the landlord had not taken action. His questions were:
1. Did the fire officer report and record the breach of fire regulations?
2. Why did the landlord not act when the issue was first reported by the resident in 2019?
3. Were the residents’ concerns recorded on any fire log?
4. Why was the landlord allowing the neighbours to put the resident’s household in danger?
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 April 2021 and responded to the complaint at stage one of the complaints procedure on 6 May 2021. The letter explained the different ways that a fire breach could be identified (estate inspections, fire risk inspections, reports to the service centre). Once a breach was identified letters may be sent to a whole block or individual and items could be seized if they were posing a risk. Timescales were given for the landlord’s fire and building safety team to complete any actions.
The letter gave a few details as to what action the landlord was taking in relation to the door closer and explained that if the neighbour was refusing the door closer, an installation certificate could not be issued. Without this, the action would remain open on the Asset Management System and would be followed up until the matter was resolved.
As the resident was not satisfied that the response answered his queries and the situation regarding the door remained the same, he contacted his local council to complain about the situation on 21 July 2021. He was concerned that the door in its current state posed a risk to the health and safety of his family.
The local council contacted the landlord on the same day asking it to clarify what it was doing in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the door closer. The landlord responded on 23 July 2021. It advised the local authority that it was to write to the neighbour advising that a new door closer would be fitted and that there would be a breach of the tenancy should this be removed.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for action in relation to the door. On 29 November 2021, the landlord sent a letter to him stating that the fire brigade had advised it that the resident had removed the self-closing device from his flat door. The resident responded with incredulity, stating that it was the neighbour who had removed her door closer, and him who had been complaining about it.
By January 2022, the landlord’s internal emails showed that it was trying to source a door closer, but there were difficulties due to the location of the door. The situation for the resident remained the same. He contacted the local council again, who chased the landlord for an update.
The landlord’s final response to the complaint was sent on 14 January 2022. This confirmed that a specialist contractor had been requested to attend the property to undertake a further assessment. The landlord would inform the resident when it had received the inspection outcome and to make an appointment to have works carried out. The letter explained that fire assessment surveys were undertaken every three years, with the next survey planned for 2023. All surveys were logged in the database, and any interim assessments are included. The door closer installed on the neighbour’s door was deemed incompatible with the household and the landlord was currently working to find a solution for all parties.
In February, the doors were measured again for replacement. The resident has confirmed that no warning was given, or appointment made. His neighbour was not in at this time. It appears that two different teams within the landlord were both considering replacement of the doors.
The completion certificate in relation to the flat doors is dated 31 March 2022. Recent correspondence from the resident has confirmed that the neighbour has disconnected the door closer.

Workmen

The resident complained about the conduct of contractors who visited the neighbours flat on Saturday 27 and Sunday 28 March 2021 to replace a sash window. He stated that he was given no notice of the appointment, the workmen failed to wear facemasks and set up a work area in front of the living room bay window. He and his family were unable to use the lounge until 6pm on Saturday. On Sunday, the resident asked them not to use the garden and one contractor laughed at him. Later, the workmen advised that the upstairs neighbour had told them to work in the garden not on the path. The resident then asked that they use the driveway, which they did. The workmen returned on 1 April 2021, again unannounced and unmasked. They worked in the resident’s garden, and he complained that power tools were left unsafe, and a piece of sash window was dropped from above. The resident asked a series of questions:
1. Did the landlord obtain permission to work unsocial hours?
2. If so, why did it not communicate with neighbours regarding the hours of work?
3. Why did landlord not advise residents that workmen would be at the property and using his rear patio?
The landlord’s stage one response confirmed that it would not generally expect such works to affect others and it did not always contact other residents unless aware that the works would be blocking the only access route. The landlord apologised for any noise and agreed that a letter should have been sent to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its service failure. It also explained that urgent works were often carried out on a Saturday, and this may have been the case as the job related to a window.
The landlord expanded upon this in its stage two response. It acknowledged that the close proximity of the workmen could have been disturbing. The works had been subcontracted to a specialist firm and the planning of the work had been difficult due to covid restrictions, short staffing, and procurement issues. The issues raised by the resident had been put to the contractors who had stated that masks were worn at all times. The landlord had asked for a note to be placed on the resident’s file requesting that where possible that no works take place in the garden. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the workmen.
The stage two review identified areas for improvement as follows:
1. Landlord to consider informing all customers in small residential buildings when works are due to take place out of hours or at weekends, as any works are likely to have an impact.
2. To ensure that the door to the neighbour’s flat does not slam or make noise when closing, to avoid further complaints.

Complaint handling

19. The complaint submitted to the landlord on 5 April 2021 included a third complaint regarding increased noise transference from the flat above. The resident noted that the neighbour had recently replaced the carpet and noise had increased. The resident confirmed that he was not expecting the landlord to dictate the quality of the carpet but believed his neighbour was using a rug, rather than carpet with underlay. He pointed out that noise had been a problem in the past.

20. There is no evidence of any response to this complaint in the landlord’s stage one or two decisions.

21. A fourth complaint was listed regarding the condition of the windows at the resident’s property. The resident described the windows as dating back to the 1930s and that they were single glazed, draughty, and prone to leaks. He noted that a decent homes survey had recommended that the windows have double glazing installed but this had not happened. He further complained that his concerns sent to the landlord on 2 March 2021. This concerned the neighbours dripping tumble dryer extractor pipe which was dripping onto his kitchen window.
22. Again, there is no evidence that the landlord made any response to this element of the resident’s complaint in either of its formal decisions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s Fire Safety policy states that the landlord, as the Responsible Person under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, will:
1. Conduct a fire risk assessment of the premises and review it regularly, in accordance with the recommendations in the fire risk assessment for each property.
2. Inform the residents and employees or their representatives about the risks identified and carry out remedial action to remove those risks so far as reasonably practicable.
3. Put in place and maintain, appropriate fire safety and mitigation measures.
The landlord was aware that the fire doors needed replacing as this was highlighted in its fire assessment of November 2020. Under its policy commitment it was to carry out remedial action to remove the risk. The report stated that this action should be undertaken by 10 February 2021. The landlord was slow to respond to the issue and it did not meet this target as the doors were not replaced until March 2022.
There is limited evidence of the landlord keeping the resident informed as to its intentions or that it provided him with regular updates. This contributed to the resident’s belief that the landlord was not taking the risk to his family seriously. The lack of information also resulted in the resident having to contact the local council to raise his concerns regarding his safety.
Within his complaint, the resident asked specific questions relating to how breaches were managed and logged and why the landlord did not act when he first raised the issue with the door closer back in 2019. There is limited evidence that the landlord provided answers to these queries, although its complaint responses did go some way to explaining how a breach may be identified and the logging of fire safety assessments.
The landlord’s stage two response identified the following area for improvement: ‘Ensure that the requested assessment is carried out to the fire doors and all works are carried out in a timely manner, with both parties fully informed.’ It was appropriate that the landlord identified this as an area of improvement, but this did not provide any redress to the resident for the fact that this had not happened in relation to his concerns.
The resident had to contact both the local council and the fire brigade and make a formal complaint to try and get the landlord to take action. This time and trouble required to progress this matter has not been fully recognised by the landlord.
It is noted that the resident has informed this Service that the door in question is again without a door closer. This is addressed below.

Workmen

By March 2021 Government guidance in relation to Covid 19 confirmed that landlords or contractors could safely access properties in order to carry out a range of works including routine safety inspections, essential and non-essential repairs, planned or unplanned maintenance inside and outside the home. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have arranged the repair.
Once it was made aware of the resident’s concerns regarding the sub-contractors, the landlord raised the issue with the company. The sub-contractors denied the allegations and stated that masks were worn whilst at the property. It is also noted that the workmen relocated when asked to move by the resident. The landlord took appropriate action by raising the issue with the sub-contractor and confirming the standard of behaviour it expected.
The landlord explained that it had proved difficult to schedule the works due to Covid 19 restrictions, staff shortages and procurement issues. The works therefore took place at a weekend. The landlord has accepted that it should have given the resident warning that the workmen were to attend. It has apologised for this omission and offered compensation. This, along with the explanations given, have provided the resident with reasonable redress commensurate to the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a complaint policy that sets out how it will respond to complaints. In relation to timings, this states that the landlord aims to provide a stage one response within ten working days of the acknowledgement of the complaint. At stage two, the aim is to send a response within twenty working days from the complaint being escalated. If either timescale is not possible, the policy states that the landlord will contact the resident and let them know when the response will be sent, which will not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
The complaint is dated 5 April 2021 but was emailed to the landlord on 6 April 2021. It was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 April 2021. The stage one response was therefore due on 23 April 2021 but was sent on 6 May 2021. There is no evidence that this delay significantly disadvantaged the resident. The landlord was contacting the sub-contractor and obtaining information regarding the fire safety action and its delay was not unreasonable.
The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 9 August 2021 by telephone. He repeated this request in his emails of 10 and 15 September 2021. Once this had been chased again the landlord located his email of 15 September and confirmed that the complaint would be escalated on 29 October 2021. Its final response was sent on 14 January 2022, significantly outside its policy aims.
There were clearly significant delays in the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint. It is of concern that this was not identified within the stage two response. Additionally, no redress has been provided for this delay, or the time and trouble that the resident had to go to get a final decision. This was not appropriate.
In addition, the landlord failed to formally respond to the two of the resident’s complaints that were listed clearly in his letter of complaint dated 5 April 2021 (complaints three and four). These related to noise transference from the flat above and the condition of his windows. No explanation has been provided for this omission and again this was not identified or acknowledged as part of the stage two review and no redress has been offered to the resident.

Determination (decision)

Having considered all the evidence:
1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the replacement of fire safety doors.
2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the complaint about the conduct of workmen.
3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to keep the resident informed about the action it was taking in relation to the fire safety doors. It did not answer the specific questions in his complaint and there were delays in it replacing the door closer. The resident expended considerable time and trouble to get information through contacting the local council and fire service.
The landlord raised the issues set out in the complaint with its sub-contractors, provided the resident with explanations and acknowledged where there had been a minor service failure. It took appropriate steps to address this through its apology and offer of compensation
There were significant delays in escalating the complaint to stage two and further delays in issuing a decision. There were also failures in identifying and responding to all of the residents’ complaints with complaints three and four from the original complaint remaining unanswered. The resident had to resort to contacting this Service to ensure that a final response was provided, which was necessary for the external escalation of the case.

Orders

That the landlord pays an additional £450 compensation to the resident. This will bring the total compensation payable to £500. This comprises:
1. £150 for the time and trouble the resident had to take to progress the complaint about the fire door.
2. £300 for the delays in handling of the complaint and the failure to consider complaint three and four.
That the landlord confirms to the resident and this Service the current position in relation to the fire doors, the resident’s windows, and any ongoing works along with a timetable for completion.
The landlords sends a written apology to the resident on its handling of the fire safety door issues and the formal complaint.
The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four calendar weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

That the landlord reviews its current approach to disconnected door closers and has clear guidance on the obligations of residents and the action the landlord may take.