Southwark Council (202223453)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223453

Southwark Council

27 September 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 the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat on the second floor of a residential block owned by the local authority landlord. The building has four storeys and is within a complex of several blocks of similar size.
On 30 March 2022, The resident reported to the landlord that a hoarding activity was taking place at the neighbouring property. The neighbour is elderly, and there were several reports of intimidating behaviour by the neighbour towards residents in the block. There were also reports of loud noises at night from the neighbour’s property, and the building had rodent infestations that the resident said may be related to the hoarding activity at the neighbour’s property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 May 2022 and stated that the next-door property could be a potential hoarding case. He said the windows next door were blocked with boxes from floor to ceiling, and the place looked derelict. He said the landlord is responsible for ensuring that each flat is fitted with a smoke alarm, but given the state of the property, he did not think the landlord had checked that the fire alarm was installed and working correctly. The resident said mental health services should monitor the neighbour as he ‘represented a danger for everyone living in the building’.
The landlord responded on 8 May 2022. It empathised with the resident’s situation and said it understood how stressful and difficult this might be for the resident. It said it took the matter very seriously and would send a letter to the neighbour arranging a home visit within a week.
The resident chased the matter with the landlord in May, June and August 2022. The landlord advised on 10 August 2022 that the neighbour did not allow the landlord access to the property; however, it had a “stern conversation” with the neighbour about the state of the property. The landlord advised that this was a complex issue. The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 October 2022 and said 6 months had passed since its first stage complaint, yet seemingly, the landlord had not gained access to the neighbour’s property. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
The landlord responded in its final response letter on 17 October 2022. It said it met with the resident at the property [earlier on the same day] and arranged for a joint visit with the fire brigade to inspect the neighbour’s property and assist in gaining entry. It said if the neighbour refused entry, it would apply for an injunction from the court to resolve the matter. The landlord said it reviewed the history and documents of the case and believed it had taken all appropriate actions to resolve the issue.
The resident contacted this service on 10 January 2023 and stated that the landlord must be aware of the poor condition of the neighbour’s property, as it is visible from the communal walkway. He said a year had already passed, yet the landlord failed in its promise to inspect the neighbour’s property and make the neighbour’s flat safe. The resident said the landlord must use all available tools to prevent a fire. During the course of the investigation, the landlord informed this service that it had made some progress on the case, which this report discusses in the assessment section below. The resident informed this service that he had not heard any updates on the case since the landlord’s final response letter and that the situation was still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident is concerned about health and safety at the block. While the Ombudsman can take a view on this, it is not within our jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about building security or to decide whether a landlord has been negligent of this. The fire service enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well regulatory standards are being met. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedures correctly, complied with any relevant legislation, followed good practice and was fair in all circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against complainants’ neighbours.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the aspect of the complaint regarding his fire safety concerns. The resident’s other concerns about anti-social behaviour and pest control will not be further referenced within this assessment.

Policies and procedures

Landlords have a legal duty under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to ensure that a fire risk assessment is carried out to identify and remove any fire risks and hazards or to reduce these as far as possible. A fire risk assessment is conducted on the assumption that there are no issues within a specific dwelling that may impact the overall safety of the block.
Government guidance for fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats (2011) states that it is essential that, in all apartments, regardless of the date of construction, there is an adequate number of working smoke alarms.
The landlord’s tenant manual states that it is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure the fire alarms in their properties are in functioning order.
The landlord’s hoarding policy states that upon receiving reports of a hoarding incident, the landlord would engage a multi-agency approach to safeguard, prevent deterioration and restore the health, safety, and well-being of the hoarder and the affected residents. It says a balance between concern for the hoarder and respect for the local community must be struck. The sections of the policy pertinent to the case are:
1. The landlord must create an action plan with clear responsibilities assigned to each relevant agency, precise target dates and ongoing monitoring.
2. Appropriate professional fire safety advice must be sought to eliminate fire risks.
3. The public interest in sharing essential information outweighs the interest in maintaining confidentiality.
4. As a last resort, the landlord may seek an injunction from the court to enter the property to ensure it does not pose a risk to the other occupants of the block.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The resident has complained about a heightened risk of fire caused by hoarding at the neighbouring property. The hoarding of combustible materials increases the risk of a fire, and the clutter can block the escape route in the event of a fire. The resident asked the landlord to mitigate the risk.
The Ombudsman would look to see that when a landlord receives a complaint about fire safety, it reviews the concerns and takes the necessary steps to mitigate the risks. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on cladding and fire safety says an absence of information can cause significant distress for residents; therefore, landlords are expected to be proactive and update residents regularly, even where there is little or no change.
This service recognises that this had been a challenging case for the landlord to manage. The landlord was required to balance its obligations to ensure residents’ fire safety in the block with its social obligations to support the vulnerable neighbour. The landlord was also obliged to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data. As such, this may have impacted the extent of information it was able to disclose to the resident.
In this case, the resident first alerted the landlord about the potential hoarding activity at the property next door in March 2022. The landlord did not respond. This was not appropriate. The resident then made a formal complaint on 7 May 2022, to which the landlord responded on the same day. It told the resident it would send a letter to the neighbour and inspect the property within a week. However, it failed to inform the resident, who was left chasing the landlord for updates throughout the complaint process. He asked whether the landlord found the neighbour’s property to be fire-safe. Given that the resident did not ask a question that may intrude on his neighbour’s privacy, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not keep the resident up to date about fire safety.
The landlord stated in its final response letter on 17 October 2022 that it reviewed its correspondence on the case and was satisfied it had taken all appropriate actions to resolve the complaint. However, in the five months the complaint progressed through the landlord’s internal complaint process, there is little evidence that the landlord addressed the fire risk, with the exception of the following:
1. A week after receiving the stage 1 complaint on 16 May 2022, it notified the neighbour that it would inspect the property and needed access to all rooms. The landlord mistyped the inspection date and accidentally wrote it would inspect the property on 8 May 2018, a date that had occurred 4 years in the past.
2. A week after receiving the escalation request on 10 August 2022, it attended the neighbour’s property. It had a ‘stern conversation’ during which it informed the neighbour that it would arrange for the fire brigade to come and inspect his property.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted any third-party agencies during this time. The delay on the part of the landlord was not appropriate. It significantly delayed the resident from resolving his complaint, causing further distress that could have been avoided.
In 2019, the landlord carried out a fire risk assessment for the block, which required installing a self-closing mechanism on flat doors. The project started in 2019, but the landlord was not able to gain access to the neighbour’s property ever since. This issue peaked at the same time the resident made his complaint to the landlord. The landlord was refused entry to the neighbour’s property on 21 October, 8 November and 6 December 2022. It said it would start injunction proceedings on 7 December 2022. Legal action could not occur before a mental health assessment took place to establish the mental capacity of the neighbour. Therefore, the landlord made a referral to adult social care on 13 December 2022. However, Social Services returned the referral to the landlord on 11 January 2023, stating that the landlord did not follow the hoarding policy and did not conduct an initial assessment before making the referral to Social Services. The failure of the landlord to follow its policy caused an entirely avoidable delay. This was not appropriate.
Social services advised the landlord that no further action would be taken until the landlord has completed the following steps:
1. Discuss with the neighbour the risks of living in a hoarded property.
2. Complete a hoarding assessment and declutter the neighbour’s property.
3. Make a referral to the community’s GP to ascertain whether the issue is related to cognitive impairment or an illness.
4. Complete a welfare check in order to ascertain whether the neighbour meets the criteria for ‘care and support’ under the Care Act 2014.
5. Ask permission from the neighbour to get in contact with adult social care.
From the evidence available to this service:
1. The landlord sent letters to the resident in October 2022, briefly explaining that the property was a fire risk to the neighbour and other residents on the estate. It had arranged for the fire brigade to come on-site in December 2022 and assess the neighbour’s property, although the neighbour refused entry and did not engage with the fire brigade.
2. Declutter the resident’s property – the landlord had brought its cleaning team to the building to assess whether it could help declutter the property. However, it was decided that only the hallway would be cleared in order to allow the closing mechanism of the fire door to be installed. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a hoarding assessment.
3. There is no evidence that the landlord made a referral to the community GP.
4. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a welfare check.
5. There is no evidence that the landlord asked the neighbour for his permission to make a referral to social services.
While it is clear the landlord has taken some action and this is a difficult situation, it failed to take the necessary steps to safeguard the neighbour and ensure it has access to the support needed. Therefore, the landlord has failed to take the necessary steps to mitigate the risks brought on by hoarding.
The neighbour eventually allowed the landlord to enter the property on 12 April 2023, and it fitted the self-closing mechanism to the door. However, the landlord did not check whether fire alarms were installed at the property. There is no evidence that the landlord progressed the resident’s complaint further. This was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord has failed to follow its hoarding policy and issues pertaining to fire safety have been outstanding since 2019, as the landlord could not gain access to the neighbour’s property. The landlord did not take the matter seriously, which meant that insufficient action was taken in response to a serious matter of fire safety being reported. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to act with a sense of urgency and take appropriate and proportionate action to mitigate the risk of fire. The complaint was left unresolved, and the safety issue remained outstanding, leaving the resident feeling anxious and distressed. This was not appropriate.
The resident told the landlord on 7 May 2022 that he lived in a “constant state of anxiety and distress” caused by this situation. The resident first tried to inform the landlord in March 2022, but the landlord did not respond. He then formally complained to the landlord, chasing the landlord for a resolution. The landlord concluded the complaint 5 months after it started, making no real progress on the complaint at that time. The landlord had no further updates for the resident, leaving him in a constant state of anxiety and distress concerning fire safety in his home. The resident’s distress would be compounded by the landlord’s latest update to this service in September 2023. It said it was looking to set a date to inspect the fire alarm at the neighbour’s property. However, it was not able to agree on a date yet. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took the resident’s complaint seriously. The landlord missed several opportunities to recognise its failure, put things right for the resident, and use the complaint process to improve its services.
Compensation of £850 has been ordered to redress distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failure by a landlord caused significant detriment to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance can be found on this service’s website.
As the issue is ongoing and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this, an order is made below to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the delay in addressing the resident’s concerns. It must also outline what it had learnt from the case to ensure failures such as those identified above are avoided in the future. A copy of its letter must be sent to this service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This must be paid into the resident’s bank account and cannot be offset against any arrears the resident may have. Evidence of the payment must be sent to this service.
3. Work with other agencies to inspect the neighbouring property and create an action plan to address the issues and failures identified in this report. This action plan must include timescales for action (to be adhered to) and be shared with this service. As part of the action plan, the landlord should consider whether the risks associated with hoarding activity require a fire risk assessment to address the impact posed by the hoarded property at the resident’s building specifically. If so, the landlord must arrange for this to be undertaken. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale for this in the action plan.

Recommendations

The landlord must also review complaints it may have received from other residents of the block affected by the issues identified in this report and ensure it has taken reasonable steps to address the complaints in light of the findings of this report.