Bromford Housing Association Limited (202114834)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114834

Bromford Housing Association Limited

29 March 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision to remove the communal porch doors to the resident’s property.
   2. its associated complaint handling.

Background

2. This complaint is submitted to the landlord and the Housing Ombudsman Service as a group complaint. The resident has authority to bring this complaint on behalf of herself and other residents living in the same scheme, owned by the landlord.
3. The resident lives in a bungalow that adjoins another bungalow as do the other residents within this group complaint. There is a shared communal area between each bungalow which previously had some sliding porch doors enclosing it. A previous landlord installed the porch doors around 20 years ago. This created an internal space between the bungalows.
4. The landlord identified that these communal spaces required a fire risk assessment to comply with recent changes in fire safety law. The landlord expressed concern that the enclosed communal area created a fire risk.
5. By April 2021 the landlord identified three options to comply with the fire safety requirements and to address the fire risk:
   1. Option one was to install fire doors to each property opening onto the shared space. This would involve the installation of fire-rated glazing and frames to the windows opening onto the communal area.
   3. Option two was to install fire detection and alarms interlinked across both properties.
   4. Option three was to remove the sliding porch doors.
6. The landlord favoured option three but agreed to install new doors and windows for each bungalow to help improve insulation. It also mentioned the compartmentation of the loft space between the bungalows needed checking. The landlord visited and wrote to the residents in April 2021 and explained that it intended to remove the porch doors as part of the wider window and door replacement work it would be doing. The landlord offered a two-week grace period for any comments before work started.
7. In May 2021 the landlord engaged in further consultation with residents. On 10 May 2021, the landlord agreed to rendering repairs, redecoration, removal of carpets, and installing a handrail and posts as well as external lighting at the resident’s property. It also agreed to meet a relative of the resident at the property on 17 May 2021 to confirm these works.
8. The resident wanted to retain the porch doors because they had been in situ for over 20 years and provided warmth and protection from the elements, including from drafts. They created a hallway and space to take off wet shoes and coats. The resident submitted a complaint on 4 October 2021.
9. The landlord issued its response at stage one of its complaint process on 2 November 2021. It maintained its decision to remove the porch doors on the basis that it was not financially viable to keep the doors and make them compliant with current fire regulations. It confirmed it would provide insulation for the resident’s property.
10. The landlord’s contractors removed the communal porch doors on 15 November 2021 without the resident’s agreement. The landlord declined to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process. It explained on 16 December 2021 that it did not feel that the resident raised any new issues or evidence to allow it to consider her complaint at stage two.
11. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman and requested that the porch doors be reinstated as a resolution to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to remove the porch doors

12. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to consult residents on any issues likely to have a substantial impact on them. The landlord must also keep all communal areas in good repair and is bound by fire safety legislation.
13. Although the recent Fire Safety Act 2021 had not come into force at the time the landlord made the decision, it had a bearing on its decision. This is because the landlord was on notice of the changes in law on the horizon. Against this legislative backdrop, the landlord identified the need to ensure that the communal areas complied with legal requirements and decided to remove the communal porch doors as part of this compliance.
14. The landlord began a period of consultation in April 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a consultation with residents in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. Although the landlord would be expected to listen to residents and take their views into account, it would not be obliged to comply with residents’ wishes in respect of changes to communal areas.
15. There were extensive communications, consultation, and three face-to-face meetings with residents on 20 April 2021, 17 May 2021 and 6 October 2021 before removal of the doors. The resident felt that they had not been given notice of removal of the doors. The resident had been advised of the works in April 2021 and had received a first written confirmation of the intention to remove the porch doors in a letter from their landlord sent on 28 April 2021.Therefore the evidence suggests the landlord had taken reasonable steps to give notice to the resident before the doors were removed. The landlord was not obliged to suspend any works whilst it considered the resident’s complaint.
16. Understandably, the resident felt upset by the landlord’s decision. She had enjoyed the use of the internal enclosed space for many years and felt aggrieved by its removal. However, the landlord’s explanation that the removal of the porch doors and upgrade of other doors and windows was the most practical and cost-effective option was reasonable and was not contrary to any policy or law.

Complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaint policy says the landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The policy requires a response to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days. Its complaint policy indicates that the landlord can refuse an escalation to stage two if a resident unreasonably refuses to provide supporting information or evidence.
18. The resident complained on 4 October 2021. The landlord responded on 6 October 2021, by visiting the resident. This was a reasonable action to take as its complaint policy requires a response to be verbally agreed upon before a formal written stage one response is issued. It was clear from the record of the meeting that the resident was aware of the landlord’s position, but the resident and landlord did not reach an agreement regarding the complaint.
19. The landlord issued a written response to the stage one complaint on 2 November 2021. This was 11 working days after the time in which it should have responded. Although this delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, it was not significant overall, and the landlord had been in contact with the resident prior to issuing a written complaint response, so the resident was aware of what was happening with the complaint before the response was issued.
20. The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process. The Ombudsman must assess whether this decision was fair and reasonable having regard to this Service’s dispute resolution principles and the landlord’s policies. The landlord’s guide to complaints and the Ombudsman’s own complaints handling code set out how landlords should deal with complaints effectively and fairly. This guidance indicates that unless there is any immediate resolution possible the complaint should be escalated to stage two. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint.
21. In the landlord’s response to stage one of the complaints policy, it requested the resident provide any information not already considered. The resident did not provide any further specific information in response to this. It was therefore within its policy and reasonable for the landlord to refuse to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The resident was able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman following the landlord’s response and therefore she was not at a significant disadvantage because the landlord decided not to issue a stage two response to her complaint.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove the porch doors.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not already done so, undertakes the agreed works involving rendering and remedial repairs, redecoration, removing carpets, installing a handrail and posts, providing a concrete step to the front door as well as external lighting at the resident’s property and insulating any walls that have become external since the porch doors removal.
25. It is recommended that the landlord inform the residents involved in the group complaint within four weeks of the date of this report whether the compartmentation checks within the loft space of their bungalows have been completed and if not, then it should complete this.