A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202106070)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106070

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

18 February 2022

 

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

 

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident lives in the property (‘the property’), in a block of flats under the terms of a Shared Ownership Lease dated 4 April 2008.  She moved in during August 2018. The block she lives in is connected to another block of flats which the landlord lets out to tenants on a ‘general needs’ basis. The buildings are connected, and access can be gained from one to the other through fire doors in an emergency.

 

  1. The resident reports an ongoing problem with the emergency doors being abused by residents from the other building. She has stated to this Service the following: –

 

  1. “Since I have been living here, many times my neighbours from the leaseholder block and I have reported rough sleepers, drug dealers and vandalism and criminal damage caused by the children of the tenants from the Social Housing block of general needs who access the leasehold block easily because they abuse the emergency doors. Leaseholders, including myself, have been verbally and physically assaulted by the tenants of the adjacent block of general needs, till this day they are still abusing the interconnecting emergency doors, using our lift, using our communal areas as a dump.”

 

  1. The resident reports working unsociable hours and feeling vulnerable when returning home after dark. She further reports finding the situation stressful and feels it is having a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. She considers that security around the buildings and relating to the car park needs to be improved – although she did not raise this as an issue in the complaint which is the subject of this investigation. There is CCTV in operation on this estate of buildings.

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote an open letter to the residents in the leasehold block providing an update on the emergency doors and with advice on how to obtain CCTV footage in the event they had had cause to report criminal activity to the police. It stated that:

a)     The emergency doors linking the two blocks were being misused by some residents despite repeated requests and discussions “with the individuals responsible”.

b)     In November 2020 the landlord had instructed an independent fire consultant to visit the block to see if a solution could be found. They explained that the current set up, in the form of a green emergency break glass device, was the appropriate one for releasing the doors in the case of an emergency and that travel distances to alternative exits were too long to discontinue this way out. The doors therefore needed to remain in place and on the basis that they were currently installed. No action could therefore be taken regarding the doors.

c)     With regard to CCTV, it set out the procedure for releasing footage to the police. Alternatively, it set out its procedure for reviewing footage in the event of the resident making an allegation of anti–social behaviour (ASB). Primarily it needed precise information about dates and times of incidents with a description of the individual involved.

 

  1. On 5 May 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She stated she had arrived home from a late shift to find four young teenagers from the neighbouring block “sitting, chatting, being loud and doing their hair on our staircase”. She commented that issues such as this had been reported “hundreds of times” and yet they were still gaining access to the building. She also reported that after another late shift at work recently, she had arrived home to find the Dry Riser outlet glass door had been smashed, giving details of its location. She had reported it to the police with the aid of a neighbour. She stated that “if those fire doors connecting our block to the block of general needs were properly fixed, we wouldn’t have this conversation still and we would be left living in peace and not in this very stressful situation”.

 

  1. On 17 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident attaching its initial response to the complaint pursuant to stage one of its complaints procedure. The letter set out the following: –

 

a)     The landlord understood the complaint to be about ASB, namely that young adults from the neighbouring block were loitering in the stairwells late at night; vandalism had occurred to the dry riser on the first floor; and children were gaining entry to the resident’s block.

b)     It acknowledged that the resident wanted it to “fix” the interconnecting doors between the blocks and ensure leaseholders were not charged for any repairs caused by vandalism from residents of the other block.

 

  1. The landlord’s conclusions were as follows: –

 

a)     It confirmed that a number of reports of vandalism had been received regarding damage to the dry risers in the block on 3 May 2021. The damage was inspected two days later, and repairs raised and completed accordingly. It agreed that residents should not be asked to pay for these repairs in their service charges.

b)     It had consulted a Fire Safety Consultant with a view to whether the interconnecting doors between the blocks could be permanently sealed – as it was aware that residents in the block desired this. However, this was not possible due to compliance with fire safety regulations. It commented that “to try and deter the vandalism we have a break glass system on the interconnecting doors and have increased CCTV within the general needs block to act as a deterrent”.

c)     It confirmed it was reviewing CCTV footage from the time residents had reported the vandalism taking place and would take appropriate action if it could identify a link to any specific property/resident.

d)     In the meantime, the landlord was liaising with the police to tackle vandalism in the block and was setting up a virtual residents’ meeting for June 2021 to discuss the situation – the resident should have received an invitation to it. Whilst the landlord could not seal the doors, it was open to any other suggestions the residents might have at that meeting to deal with the issue.

e)     It was also sending a general letter to all residents to see if any information could be gathered to identify those responsible and welcomed, in particular, details of any timeframes for which CCTV footage might usefully be reviewed.

 

  1. The resident emailed in response the following day, 18 May 2021, stating she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints procedure. She stated that, whilst the tenants from the neighbouring block were able to access her block easily, “we will never get rid of the ongoing serious issues of antisocial behaviour, etc”. She requested the landlord provide further details of why it could not seal the interconnecting doors to the two blocks as this was necessary, in her view, to promote health and safety. She suggested that at the very least a loud alarm needed to sound if anyone tried to use the doors, as a deterrent.

 

  1. On 20 May 2021 the landlord responded. It reiterated that the interconnecting doors could not be sealed due to fire regulations. It argued that it could not solve the problem of safety of leaseholders by creating another problem of failing to comply with fire regulations. The landlord asserted it had set out what alternative measures it had put in place. It had also sent out an explanatory letter in March to explain why the doors could not be sealed. Accordingly, it took the view it had already addressed the resident’s concerns and that no valid reason had been given to escalate the complaint to the next level. It therefore declined to do so.

 

  1. On 29 June 2021 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf regarding her request to escalate her complaint. The landlord was asked to provide a final response regarding why it would not be escalating the complaint further.

 

  1. On 12 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it was providing its final response as requested by this Service and according to stage two of its complaints process. It was aware of the allegations of ASB. It stated these were general in nature rather than specific, and this made them difficult to address. It reiterated that it could not offer to seal the interconnecting doors for fire safety reasons.

 

  1. It confirmed the virtual residents’ meeting had taken place and a newsletter was to be distributed shortly with the agreed outcomes. It asserted it was working hard to try to resolve the issues. It recognised the resident was likely to be disappointed, but it had fully considered her feedback.

 

  1. On 13 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again, confirming she had made a request for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure because its response had not resolved the issues that she, and her fellow residents in the block, were facing and which were ongoing. Further, at around this time she emailed the landlord asking for a copy of the minutes of the residents’ meeting which had taken place. She chased this latter request again on 12 August 2021.

 

  1. On 17 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that the newsletter it had intended to send out following the virtual residents’ meeting had been delayed but it could offer a summary of what was discussed. It confirmed that: –

 

a)     Advice was given about raising repairs in the communal areas.

b)     With regard to ASB, residents were expected to report this to the police and once a CAD number was provided, residents could contact the landlord so that it could also investigate. Residents were advised that they must provide flat numbers and details of incidents, and if it was being asked to review CCTV footage, the landlord needed the time/date of the incident and which floor area was involved.

c)     Signage in the respective blocks was to be improved to offer assistance to visitors and for deliveries.

d)     The landlord intended to carry out a “resident walk” around both areas where residents could highlight any problem areas.

e)     The landlord was introducing ANPR in the car park to identify vehicles which should not be parked there.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

  1. The Lease sets out the legal relationship between the resident and the landlord. It provides for the resident to pay rent and service charges. It states that the landlord is to maintain and repair the common parts of the building the flat is situated in. It also contains the following provisions: –

 

a)     The resident is “not to do or permit or suffer to be done in the Premises or in the Building or upon the estate anything from which a nuisance or annoyance could or might arise to the lessees or the tenants of the Landlord and occupiers of any other flats in the building or of any property in the neighbourhood or use the Premises or any part thereof for any illegal or immoral purpose”.

b)     The landlord will ensure that every lease or tenancy of premises in the building will contain a similar promise to the one above.

c)     The landlord also promises that if the leaseholder requests it, it will enforce these promises against other tenants provided that the leaseholder “indemnifies” it in respect of the cost of it taking that enforcement action.

 

  1. The landlord’s policy on ASB relating to leaseholders is set out in its Leasehold Management Policy. This states that its approach is to advise leaseholders to contact the police and that it will work in partnership with them. Where a leaseholder makes such a report, the landlord offers to support their stance where there is sufficient evidence to do so. Where there is insufficient evidence, but a leaseholder wants the landlord to act, it will do so but only if the leaseholder pays its costs of doing so.

 

Assessment

 

  1. When assessing this complaint, it is important to recognise that it is not the landlord who might be behaving in an anti social manner. Whilst the landlord can be called upon to try to help address the problem, it cannot ‘control’ those who might be oblivious to the inconsiderate nature of their actions or who are determined to act as they please irrespective of the impact on others.

 

  1. The landlord in this case sets out its role, as far as leaseholders are concerned, as being to aid them as they seek legal redress through official channels such as the police.

 

  1. The lease agreement itself contains the provisions set out at paragraph 17 above. However, this Service cannot give an official legal determination of the interpretation of those sections and how they fit in with the tenants in the neighbouring block who are not leaseholders, not parties to those leases, and whose tenancy agreements may or may not contain a reciprocal arrangement. It is noted that both the lease agreement and the landlord’s Leasehold Management Policy refer to placing the cost of it taking action on the leaseholder’s shoulders and the resident may wish to bear this in mind.

 

  1. This Service cannot order the landlord to permanently seal a fire exit as such a remedy is not possible under the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, by which this Service operates. It is noted that the landlord has investigated this proposal with a qualified professional rather than simply dismissing it without consideration. The view of the consultant was that the emergency doors should stay in place in their existing condition and it was appropriate that the landlord followed this advice.

 

  1. The landlord’s overall response in relation to the emergency doors was reasonable as it explored options for resolving the issues facing the residents in this building and expressed itself open to any suggestions as to how it could assist further. It also hosted a residents’ meeting to discuss the situation and provided information on how to access CCTV footage to support any police reports.

 

  1. There is no evidence from which to confirm that access is being gained through the emergency doors because the landlord is failing to maintain them. At one point the resident refers to a need to “fix” them, but it is reasonable to conclude that this was a reference to securing them in place rather than repairing them. This is because no evidence has been produced, for example, to demonstrate repeat reporting of repairs needed to the doors. However, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider whether it can inspect the doors on a regular basis and if so, provide confirmation to the leaseholders as to how often this might take place.

 

  1. Further, there is CCTV in the block and a recommendation will be made for the landlord to review whether it specifically covers these doors, and if not, whether it could or should be made to do so.

 

  1. Finally, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider taking legal advice to identify what, if any, criminal offences may be being committed by misuse of the emergency doors and to circulate this information in a general letter to the residents of the both the leaseholder block and the neighbouring “general needs” block.

 

  1. In conclusion, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has acted in accordance with its Leasehold Management Policy which was appropriate and there has been no service failing on its behalf.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there is no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The leaseholder has reported anti ASB to the landlord and its primary role is to support her in making reports to official channels, such as the police, in accordance with its ASB policy. It has explored the possibility of securing the emergency doors through which access is being gained to the building; it has circulated information about its role and how to access CCTV; and it has held a resident’s meeting to discuss the position. Its actions were reasonable given all the circumstances of the case and also in accordance with its Leasehold Management Policy.

 

Orders and Recommendations

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The landlord to consider whether it can inspect the emergency doors on a regular basis (if it is not already doing so) and if so, provide confirmation to the leaseholders as to how often this might take place.

 

  1. The landlord to review whether its CCTV specifically covers these doors, and if not, whether it could or should be positioned to afford coverage of the area(s).

 

  1. The landlord to consider taking legal advice to identify what, if any, criminal offences may be being committed by misuse of the emergency doors and to circulate this information in a general letter to the residents of both the leaseholder block and the neighbouring “general needs” block.