Lambeth Council (202009614)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009614

Lambeth Council

20 February 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 regeneration works to the building and estate including:
1. The provision of information about and notice of the works.
2. The loss of allocated disabled parking bays.
3. The commencement of works to construct a new block prior to the works being completed to the resident’s block.
4. The management and mitigation of the impact from noise, dust and vibrations from the work.
5. The provision of decant accommodation.
6. The fire risk assessment.
7. Access for emergency vehicles.
The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of a service charge query.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a local authority. The resident’s property is one of four purpose-built flats in a block. The resident lives with an adult child who is disabled with profound and multiple learning difficulties. The adult child and a sibling are joint leaseholders with the resident.
The landlord has established a housing delivery company to manage regeneration works in the borough including the project for the resident’s estate. Most of the estate, except for the resident’s block, was to be demolished to make way for new homes. The project is phased and prebuilding works at the resident’s block included the installation of a new intercom system, renovation of the lobby including the concierge area, conversion of the caretaker’s room to a community room and the siting of a new back entrance to enhance fire safety whilst the front of the building became a building site for the construction of a block (Block A) built under Phase One. These works were to be completed by contractor X. After the prebuilding works, Block A was then to be built at the front of the resident’s block by contractor Y. The resident’s block, for a period, received a temporary water supply.
The landlord’s Mitigation Panel leaflet states that “As part of the Council’s Liveability Commitment for the estate any resident living on an estate subject to regeneration and/or major works who considers themselves or a member of their household to be vulnerable will be eligible to request a Mitigation Panel hearing be convened to review their circumstances in order to:
1. Identify the risks the works pose and what actions can reasonably be put in place to mitigate those risks.
2. Such risks may include, but are not limited to:
  1. Noise
  2. Dust
  3. Vibrations.
3. Such actions to mitigate the identified risks will depend on the circumstances of the case, but could include:
  1. Temporary decant of the resident until the works are finished
  2. Provision of respite accommodation made available during the day
  3. Permanent rehousing
  4. Modification(s) to the existing home.”
The landlord’s Equalities Impact Assessment for its Estate Rebuilding Programme dated January 2020 states “Air quality monitors will be in use throughout the build programme which will pick up any changes from the baseline air quality in each location and allow immediate mitigations to be made”.

Summary of Events

A newsletter for the estate dated September 2019 indicated that the works to the resident’s block would take place between October and December with works to Block A commencing in January 2020.
On 13 February 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint stating contractor X had commenced works to create a rear entrance to the block, entailing the felling of trees, on 10 February 2020 with no notice to residents. She noted that even if a newsletter had been delivered, one and a half day’s weekend notice would not be sufficient and added that residents on the ground floor were concerned about dust, noise and access issues. The resident stated that the landlord did not initiate a mitigation panel to foresee and manage issues that might arise and wanted it to agree adjustments.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 4 April 2020. It advised that:
1. Work on the resident’s block was on hold due to Covid.
2. A session to go through a spreadsheet of questions had been cancelled due to Covid-19 but it would address the wider points raised during planned engagement meetings.
3. It would produce a six-month timeline detailing all engagement activities and the commencement of works. However, Covid-19 social distancing had caused difficulties in doing this.
4. Once it had agreed a date for works to the entrance hall and building of the community room in the resident’s block, it would share a method statement and risk assessment. It would set up a Mitigation Panel so that it could discuss and resolve the specific challenges faced by specific residents.
Newsletters for the estate sent in April and May 2020 confirmed that works to block A were delayed. In July 2020 contractor Y carried out ground investigation works. Four disabled bays to the front of the resident’s block were to be suspended for works to commence on Block A, with access provisions for emergency vehicles. Where possible, alternative disabled parking facilities would be relocated to other parts of the building / estate.
During August 2020 the resident, assisted by a councillor, raised concerns about the works stating they were now starting without mitigations having been finalised and it was not clear how the works to the lobby of the resident’s block and the rear entrance which had not commenced would proceed. The resident stated that details of planned works had not been provided for consideration by an Occupational Therapist (OT), only outline drawings. She requested alternative accommodation to be provided to her and her daughter during works. From August 2020 the landlord offered decant accommodation intended to provide the resident’s daughter day respite from the distress caused by works. Offers made on 5 and 10 August 2020 were rejected.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord held a mitigation panel hearing for the resident and her daughter at which:
1. It agreed to monitor noise, vibrations and the activity of vehicles; to provide air monitoring information and explore a decant for the resident’s daughter following another OT assessment. At the meeting it was noted that a previous offer of a decant was refused due to being considered unsafe and too close to the works.
2. An offer by the landlord to place the resident in a hotel from 9am-3pm, noting that works would be commencing shortly, was rejected as the resident considered she would not be able to bring her daughter there on time whilst the daughter could not stay overnight there.
3. The landlord advised it could look for a temporary decant with wheelchair access, also taking into account the resident’s choices and the availability of properties within its stock, as well as OT recommendations which a representative from Social Services agreed to arrange. The resident advised the decant property would have to be purposely built for people with disabilities.
4. The landlord agreed to decant the resident’s daughter for day respite for five days in a hotel whilst a rear wall and railings adjacent to the resident’s flat were demolished to facilitate the rear entrance works.
Works commenced on 24 August 2020. It is understood the resident’s daughter was decanted to a hotel, initially until 28 August 2020, then extended to 7 September 2021.
On or around 5 October 2020, contractor Y produced a leaflet for the resident’s block stating that it would be commencing works on 12 October 2020 with a project completion date of late summer 2022. It stated that residents should use the new rear exit/entrance to the block where possible but that they could also use another entrance at the front. It advised that parking would be suspended in front of the block. Contractor Y further stated that it would start baseline monitoring of dust which would be used as part of the monitoring during construction.
On 19 October 2020 the resident raised a complaint stating that:
1. Contractor Y which was constructing new homes, Block A, adjacent to the resident’s block under Phase One had started work before the rear entrance to her block was completed.
2. There was a lack of up-to-date information on the progress of the works.
3. Demolition works were to be completed whilst she was decanted but were not completed by her return.
4. There was no vehicular access to her block.
5. Four personal disabled parking spaces for residents had been replaced by four street disabled bays which could be used by anyone.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord sent an update to residents of the block. It advised that:
1. Contractor X was refurbishing the entrance hall and community centre and anticipated to finish in February 2021. Residents could continue to use the front entrance until completion of the works and a temporary means of escape was being erected in the entrance whilst works were completed to the back. It apologised for an error in a newsletter sent on 5 October 2020 stating that residents could use the new back entrance.
2. It had checked that the building works posed no threat to the ability of emergency vehicles to respond to calls. A gateman for contractor Y would monitor the site boundary and provide emergency access until the new rear entrance to the block was completed. It had informed the Fire Brigade of the location of the new dry riser.
3. As there had been an impact on parking spaces, four temporary disabled parking bays had been installed on local streets. Residents could also use their parking permits for the estate on a local road.
On 13 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking for her complaint to be escalated. On 16 November 2020 the landlord advised that her complaint would be escalated to Stage 2 although a further email sent on 18 November 2020 stated that the landlord had closed the complaint as it believed it had resolved the issues through recent correspondence and a walkabout. Following these e-mails the landlord provided a Q & A document with details of its Resident Engagement Panel and which referred the resident to its website for answers to queries about fire safety, parking issues, and a transport plan. The landlord advised it would shortly publish noise and air quality data on its website.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord carried out a fire risk assessment that noted “ground floor under construction, new concierge and communal facilities to be installed”. With regards to the means of escape, the report noted there was a “slight change to ground floor layout whilst under construction, current system remains safe to use”. The landlord provided the report to the resident.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord raised a work order for a temporary overground mains water supply as there were leaks to the mains. The landlord later installed a water mains and pump for which leaseholders were charged.
The landlord explored decant accommodation for the resident’s daughter between October 2020 and February 2021; however, no property was either acceptable to the resident or available.
On 8 February 2021 the resident’s daughter submitted a legal claim against the landlord and its housing delivery company. The resident is named as the claimant’s “litigation friend.” The resident’s daughter claimed that the landlord was in breach of the Equalities Act and that she had been disadvantaged and had suffered serious distress and injury to feelings from the handling of the regeneration project. The daughter claimed in particular that the landlord had failed to:
1. Follow measures in line with an OT report and Draft Liveability Commitments.
2. Offer suitable decant accommodation where she could receive day-time respite care for the duration of construction works.
3. Introduce any adequate noise control measures.
4. Introduce any adequate air quality control measures to mitigate against dust and debris caused by building and demolition works.
5. Ensure she could leave the property without inconvenience or distress.
6. Ensure residents of the block had adequate access for vehicles either at the front or back.
7. Restrict the hours of work and ensure that hourly breaks were taken.
8. Provide any or adequate notice of the works in a timely fashion.
The landlord defended the claim on 29 December 2021. It has advised this Service that court proceedings are currently stayed to enable the parties to reach a settlement.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord sent an updated FAQ document to the resident.
On 29 March 2021 the resident raised further queries as to when the rear entrance would be built, and that the landlord had not provided a revised programme for these works as it had promised in a letter dated 18 March 2021.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord sent a Q & A document to the resident. Within this it confirmed that noise and air quality data would be published on the website, the fire risk assessment had been provided before Christmas, and the working times of contractor Y.
On 12 April 2021, the resident viewed an offer of a decant property for her daughter with an OT. The following day, the resident’s solicitor accepted on the resident’s behalf the offer of a decant property. The resident subsequently requested a risk assessment and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) authorisation. The landlord raised a meeting with professionals for 17 May 2021 which the resident did not attend as she now considered the property was too far away. The professionals who attended the meeting advised the landlord that the property was suitable and that a risk assessment and DOLS authorisation was not necessary or applicable.
In a newsletter sent on or around 23 April 2021 the landlord advised that contractor A was on track to finish work in July 2021. It advised there may be a minor alteration to the plans which would not require consultation.
The resident had contacted this Service about her complaint, posting on 7 January 2021 some of her correspondence with her landlord. On 25 April 2021, this Service forwarded the correspondence and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint stating that we understood she was complaining about:
1. The landlord and its contractors’ management of project work in and around the resident’s block and its communication concerning this.
2. Its handling of and response to her request for a decant / residential respite for her daughter.
3. The length of time demolition work was taking to be completed.
4. The noise caused during project work before 10.00 am and not being informed if/when work is scheduled to begin before 10.00 am.
5. Vehicular access to her block and the landlord’s response to her enquires regarding disabled and general parking.
6. Its response to her enquires concerning emergency access/exit to the building during the refurbishment work.
7. Its response to her service charge enquiries.
8. Its response to her enquiries about how the landlord would ensure safety from the dust caused by construction work.
9. Its response to her enquiries concerning the landlord’s fire safety assessment.
When writing to this Service on 7 January 2021 with evidence of her complaint about the regeneration works, the resident also provided this Service with a complaint letter sent on Wednesday 7 August 2019. She stated that this was an “unresolved complaint that I discovered when compiling this list for you. Please consider this as evidence that Lambeth are not scrupulous in dealing with complaints”. In the letter of 7 August 2019, the resident advised that the leaks affected all ground floor flats, caused water to pool in the service duct area and most recently had caused a ceiling to collapse and flooding to the communal lift/concierge area. The resident also advised in the letter that she had previously pursued repairs to her ceiling through the building insurance, but she had been refused the previous time.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint that this Service referred to it. It stated:
1. The resident had initially on 13 April 2021 accepted an offer of decant accommodation for her daughter, through her solicitor, then rejected the offer after requesting that a professional meeting be convened.
2. Works were delayed due to technical difficulties with the groundworks and clarification over the technical brief, compounded by inclement weather in the early days.
3. Whilst the contractor’s working hours were between 8:00am and 17:00pm, it agreed that disruptive works would be restricted between 10:00am and 17:00pm where possible.
4. Access to the building would be maintained at all times, managed by the contractor.
5. It was currently awaiting information in regards to the repairs raised in the previous complaint, once it receive this information it would provide a response to these points raised.
6. In relation to a section 20 notice for works relating to recent water issues, it asked the resident to provide a recent water bill as evidence.
7. Its online Q & A document made clear how it would ensure safety from dust caused by construction work.
8. It had provided the resident the most recent fire safety assessment.
On 17 June 2021, the resident escalated her complaint. The resident advised:
1. Residents had originally been told that the rear entrance would be ready by October 2020. She understood the brief had been changed and works would be completed now in August 2021. There was also no regular update about Contractor Y’s work.
2. It was not clear that the extension and conversion of the caretaker’s room in the block (as described in the planning documents) had become a massive demolition job.
3. The landlord had not provided noise and air quality base line readings “or indeed any ongoing readings”.
4. There had been no vehicular access since October 2020. The landlord had not provided protocols in respect of management of access to the site and of related health and safety measures.
5. There were no protocols for emergency services as the evening gateman simply listened out for sirens and was not located at the gate through which vehicles entered. She was unsure how firefighters could enter the block or deal with fires at the front. The landlord had not provided an updated fire risk assessment.
6. The landlord did not appoint a specialist OT from the Community Learning Disability Team (CLDT) who had a clinical understanding of her daughter’s needs for the meeting about the decant property. The resident explained why the decant property was not located in an acceptable location referring to her daughter’s condition and needs, and travelling issues.
7. She looked forward to the response to her previous complaint “as it was clearly overlooked before”.
8. She had not complained about the service charge for the temporary water supply and new water mains but she had been requesting the technical report upon which the charge was based to no avail.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord sent the final response to the complaint. It advised:
1. Works had commenced to Block A despite the improvement works being delayed to the resident’s block to prevent delay to the construction of more and better homes for people on the estate and on waiting lists. Commencing the works stopped uncertainty about the rebuilding of Block A and the regeneration project. Running works in parallel also reduced the length of disruption.
2. Through various mediums, regular updates were provided by the landlord and contractor Y, who residents could also contact directly. The most recent newsletter noted that there were several contractual issues with contractor X which were delaying works. There were no changes to the design of the block except for the removal of a canopy.
3. It apologised for inconvenience for delays in the demolition works which was now complete.
4. It had addressed an instance of noisy works commencing prior to 10.00 am during an earlier phase of works flagging the incident with the contractor. It had installed noise monitoring equipment.
5. It did not accept the resident’s view that her block had no vehicular access. The Council’s lead of fire safety was satisfied with the arrangements. The fire risk assessment had addressed the issue too.
On 5 August 2021, the resident advised this Service that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint as the answers contradicted previous answers and even brought up issues it had not included in the original complaint.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with the information upon which it decided to provide the temporary water supply and carry out mains work. It apologised for the delay stating that it thought the information would have been provided with the complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Regeneration works to the building and estate

Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”. In this case the resident has issued legal proceedings by submitting a claim which the landlord has submitted a defence to. The proceedings are currently stayed.
In this case the resident’s complaint to the landlord is focussed on and is inextricably linked to its handling of the regeneration works, its consideration of her daughter’s needs and the impact on her daughter. Aspects of the complaint brought to the landlord concern matters which are included and encompassed within the claim submitted by the resident’s daughter, where again the resident is representing her as the “litigant’s friend”.
For instance, the resident initially complained that the initial works to the resident’s block commenced in February 2020 without the resident being provided notification. It is also noted that works completed by contractor X overran, not being completed by the revised date of February 2021. The resident and daughter in the legal claim stated that the landlord had failed to provide them with any or adequate notice of the works in a timely fashion. The landlord in its defence has noted that all residents were sent weekly construction reports by email and regular newsletters informing them about the progress of works. In addition, it organised online events including two “meet the builders” events.
When works could resume after July 2020 the landlord and contractor advised that disabled parking bays would be suspended. The resident complained to the landlord about the loss of bays. The resident and her daughter similarly have claimed in the legal claim that the landlord failed to ensure that residents had adequate access for vehicles, and that the disabled parking spaces for residents were out of use and there was not no vehicular access to the front or back of the building.
Works to be carried out by contractor Y commenced in October 2020. The resident complained that these works were commencing before the works to her block had been finished. This complaint is reflected in her and daughter’s legal claim which states that the rear entrance to the block had not been completed and the only access to the building was via a temporary walkway at the side of the building and which led directly past the construction site, and the noise distressed her daughter.
The landlord’s Mitigation Panel leaflet recognised the risks inherently posed during building works from noise, dust and vibrations to the resident’s daughter. The resident complained about how the landlord managed the impact of noise and air quality. The resident in escalating her formal complaint stated that the landlord had not provided any baseline and further readings of noise and air quality. This complaint is mirrored in the resident and her daughter’s legal claim which states that the landlord had failed to introduce any or any adequate air quality measures to mitigate against the level of dust and debris generated by the building and/or demolition work, and in any event failed to do so in a prompt matter. Regarding noise, the resident averred that the landlord had failed to introduce any adequate noise control measures such as sound insulation to mitigate against the increased level of noise from drilling and a generator, and in any event failed to do so in a prompt manner.
The landlord agreed to provide decant accommodation for the resident’s daughter in principle because of her vulnerability and the effects of the works on her. The daughter in the claim against the landlord stated that the landlord made two offers of unsuitable accommodation and that the hotel accommodation provided in August 2020 was not ideally suited to her needs, for example not having a bath. The resident claimed that the landlord failed to secure any offer of suitable decant accommodation for the duration of the works, or act in a prompt manner to ensure that any transfer to alternative accommodation could occur as quickly as possible to minimise the her exposure to excess noise and dust. In its defence to the claim, the landlord has advised that it “has made multiple respite suggestions”.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord about its handling of the provision of decant accommodation is inextricably linked to its assessment of her daughter’s needs, and the number, location and type of the decant accommodation offered. Indeed the resident declined an offer of decant accommodation and complained that a specialist OT from the CLDT should be consulted. This complaint therefore also concerns a further matter that the resident has raised as part of legal proceedings.
In summary, Complaints 1 (a-e) which relate to the regeneration works to the building and estate are matters that have been raised as part of legal proceedings and which are therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. In making this decision the Ombudsman has also considered whether it is fair for this Service to look at the complaint given the court proceedings and current attempts to negotiate a settlement.
The aspects of the resident’s complaint about the handling of regeneration works that fall within the jurisdiction of this Service concern the fire assessment and access for emergency vehicles. Neither of these matters feature in ongoing proceedings. These complaints are addressed separately.

Fire risk assessment

The resident raised a particular concern about the fire risk assessment for her block. The landlord took appropriate action to reassure her on this point by carrying out the assessment on 14 December 2020 and providing her with a copy. The resident made further contact with the landlord stating that she believed that it should provide her with an updated fire risk assessment. The landlord managed her expectations as to whether it would be carrying out another assessment by making clear that it was satisfied with the fire assessment carried out and that they should continue to rely on it. No evidence has been provided which suggests that the landlord’s decision to rely on the previous assessment was inappropriate. As such, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire risk assessment was informative and reasonable.

Access for emergency vehicles

The resident in correspondence to the landlord raised concerns about emergency vehicles being able to access the site during the works. There is no evidence of particular instances whereby the resident or her family experienced detriment due to any lack of access of an emergency vehicle, and the complaint centred on whether vehicles would have satisfactory access in the case of an emergency.
The landlord initially advised in November 2020 that a gateman for contractor Y would monitor the site boundary and provide emergency access until the new rear entrance to the block was completed. The resident in her complaint indicated that she was not satisfied with the level of information provided by the landlord as she enquired whether there were protocols in respect of management of access to the site. She particularly expressed concern that access for emergency vehicles depended on the evening gateman hearing sirens and that he was not located at the gate which he would need to open to let emergency vehicles enter.
In its complaint response of July 2021 the landlord did not answer the resident’s queries, for instance explaining whether there was a procedure for contractor Y to follow or why it was satisfied with the arrangements. It made reference to the fire safety assessment but did not explain how the particular issue of access for emergency vehicles had been addressed. Taken together with the fact that the resident had a vulnerable daughter therefore had understandable concerns about swift and continued access for emergency vehicles, the landlord did not take appropriate or sufficient steps to reassure her on this matter.

Query about service charges

When writing to the landlord, this Service noted that the resident was unhappy about a service charge issue. The landlord in its Stage 1 response understood that the issue related to the water charge. The resident in her response clarified that she was not complaining about the charge per se, but that the landlord had not provided a technical report upon which the charge was made.
The landlord did not respond further to the resident on this complaint in the Stage 2 response. It thereby missed an opportunity to reassure her that there was a reasonable basis for the water charge which was important in the context of her wider complaint about the handling of the regeneration works and provision of information. However, shortly after, on 6 July 2022, it provided the information and apologised for the oversight in not sending this previously. Thereby, the landlord took appropriate action to resolve this complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s original complaint of 2020, summarily stating that it believed that it had resolved the issues, even though the resident had clearly indicated that she was dissatisfied. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code which states “A landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action”.
By asserting that it had resolved the complaint without explaining why or seeking to acknowledge why the resident remained dissatisfied, the landlord acted unreasonably and denied the resident her right to escalate her complaint. This caused unnecessary delay and frustration to the resident who subsequently had to contact this Service in January 2021 to pursue her complaint as well as deciding to partake in legal action to obtain a resolution.
In asking this Service to assist her with progressing her substantive complaint about the regeneration works through the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident enclosed a prior letter of complaint to highlight her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaints handling. This letter sent on 7 August 2019 referred to prior instances of water ingress and related repairs and maintenance to the resident’s property and communal areas. This Service forwarded the letter to the landlord along with other documents provided. Whilst not the focus of the resident’s substantive complaint at that time, the landlord stated in its Stage 1 response of June 2021 that it was in the process of making investigations into the issues contained within the letter of 7 August 2019. Therefore, despite the time that had elapsed since the letter was sent, it accepted a responsibility to investigate the complaint and respond.
It was also appropriate that the landlord decided to consider the complaint as the issue of recurring leaks affecting several areas of the building was significant and may have been affected or even superseded by the works to the resident’s block at that time. Resolving a dispute is a step to improving, repairing or rebuilding the landlord and tenant relationship whilst a landlord’s complaints handling procedures should demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes.
However, after agreeing to investigate in the Stage 1 response, the landlord then did not address the complaint of 7 August 2019 in its Stage 2 response, nor is there evidence of any other responses addressing the issues raised in the letter. The landlord therefore did not follow through on its commitment to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint about repairs and maintenance to communal areas (raised in her letter of 7 August 2019). The Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in establishing why a complaint is being pursued and to establish the desired outcome. Therefore, if the landlord was unsure of the details of this complaint, it had the opportunity of seeking clarification from the resident. However, it did not do so.
The resident did not specifically refer to the issues raised in her letter of 7 August 2019 when advising that she remained dissatisfied having completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is also noted that she did not bring the complaint issues raised in this letter to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period of time of having received no response from the landlord. Therefore, this Service has focussed on the landlord’s administration of this complaint, having stated it would consider this complaint in the Stage 1 response of 2 June 2021.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the provision of information about and notice of the works is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the loss of allocated disabled parking bays is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the commencement of works to construct a new block prior to the works being completed to the resident’s block is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the management and mitigation of the impact from noise, dust and vibrations from the work is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the provision of decant accommodation is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the fire risk assessment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of access for emergency vehicles.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s service charges query.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire risk assessment was informative and reasonable. No evidence has been provided which suggests that the landlord’s decision to rely on the assessment was inappropriate.
The landlord did not answer the resident’s queries about access for emergency vehicles, for instance explaining whether there was a procedure for contractor Y to follow or why it was satisfied with the arrangements. It made reference to the fire safety assessment but did not explain how the particular issue of access for emergency vehicles had been addressed. Taken together with the fact that the resident had a vulnerable daughter and therefore had understandable concerns about swift and continued access for emergency vehicles, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to reassure her on this matter.
The landlord provided information requested on the resident’s service charge query and its apology for the oversight in not sending the information sooner, within the complaints procedure, was appropriate.
The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s original complaint of 2020 summarily stating that it believed that it had resolved the issues, even though the resident had clearly indicated that she was dissatisfied. The landlord stated in its Stage 1 response of June 2021 that it was in the process of making investigations into the issues contained within the letter of 7 August 2019. However, the landlord then did not address the complaint of 7 August 2019 in its Stage 2 response nor is there evidence of any other responses addressing the issues raised in the letter.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, comprising:

i. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in its handling of the resident’s query about access for emergency vehicles.

ii. £100 for the failings in its complaint handling.

Advise the resident if there is a procedure/protocol in place to ensure access for emergency vehicles, including ensuring that the contractor is made aware of emergency calls and will provide access. The landlord should also confirm if the latest fire safety assessment addresses the issue of access for emergency vehicles. A copy of the landlord’s advice should be shared with this Service, also within four weeks.
Contact the resident to confirm whether she wishes to pursue her complaint of August 2019 and if so, to confirm the outstanding issues at this time. It should then register a formal complaint and confirm to the resident the timeframe for responding.