Clarion Housing Association Limited (202017448)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017448

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 November 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports that the property is too cold – due to the location and operation of the Auto Opening Vent (AOV) system.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord; the lease commenced in 2014. The lease says that the landlord shall maintain, redecorate, renew, and (in the event in the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve, among other things, the ventilation apparatus in the building.
  2. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including “excess cold”. When considering excess cold, the HHSRS applies to dwellings which it defines as any place which is used or meant to be used for living purposes.
  3. An AOV system is used mainly to control the ventilation of smoke in a fire. It can also be used to ventilate buildings. In the resident’s building, the vents are opened when the temperature on the top floor reaches a certain temperature. The resident says that this means the temperature on the lower floors is considerably lower which is uncomfortable.
  4. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and at twenty working days at stage two.

Summary of events

  1. In April 2020 the resident approached the Ombudsman following a complaint to the landlord about the AOV system and the temperature outside his flat.
  2. Later that month this Service completed a mediated resolution report. The landlord agreed to take action to try to resolve matters for the resident. The landlord agreed to ensure that the works to the fire doors were completed by 1 October 2020 – to ensure the common parts have airflow; and it agreed to appoint a single point of contact for the complainant to contact in respect of the progress of the works to the fire doors.
  3. The landlord approached the landlord as he considered the measures it had taken had not resolved the matter.
  4. On 17 February 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident saying it had not identified any service failure. It said:
    1. It had contacted members of its mechanical and electrical team responsible for the management of the AOV system to seek further background information and had determined that the specific issue within his complaint had already been addressed at each stage of its formal complaints process and a determination received from the Ombudsman. It enclosed copies of earlier complaint correspondence.
    2. It reiterated that it would not be adjusting the thermostat; the reasons for that had been set out in the previous responses.
    3. It had adjusted certain fire doors to allow better air flow in the communal area following contact from the Ombudsman and it had received confirmation from the responsible contract surveyor that this work had been completed on 22 October 2020. It was satisfied that it had carried out the works proposed by the Ombudsman and there was no further action for it to take.
  5. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
  6. On the same day the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said that during the recent cold spell the temperature had been only 4 degrees Celsius outside his flat, which was inside the building. He said the temperature on the upper floor was 19 degrees Celsius so the windows remain open. He said he wanted a different trigger point for the windows to open in autumn and then again in spring.
  7. On 2 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its complaint procedure. It apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord explained that it had complied with the Ombudsman’s orders in relation to a previous complaint about the AOV; that he had exhausted its complaints process and, as the Ombudsman had determined his case there was no further action it could take on this matter.
  8. In an internal email dated 4 October 2021 the subcontractor who installed the AOV system gave an explanation of how the system worked. The main points were:
    1. System had been designed as a lead AOV and an environmental temperature control for overheating. The system is set so that when not in ‘fire activation’ mode, the AOV is controlled by a temperature sensor to allow ventilation into the communal corridor areas. The strategy is to ventilate the corridors to achieve an average of approximately 24 degrees Celsius throughout the year with the temperature monitor at the top floor set to 19 degrees Celsius.
    2. The environmental temperature mode is set to one sensor on the top floor (highest floor, highest heat rise) to activate all AOVs. There cannot be a sensor on each floor as the AOVs need one control to operate the system. The temperature is set to operate on the highest temperature and control accordingly.
    3. Corridor intermediate doors are also controlled by ‘fire door hold open devices’; these maintain the doors open for ventilation during normal conditions and close in the event of fire operation (linked to the fire alarm and AOV panels.
    4. The environmental temperature control also has an additional ‘rain sensor’ to ensure the AOV closes under environmental conditions if it is raining.
  9. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said he took readings of the temperature outside his front door and they matched the outdoor temperatures; the corridors were only warmer when it rained and the vents automatically closed. He added that the landlord was not engaging with him and he also had concerns for the caretaker who worked in the building in very cold conditions.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the HHSRS, the landlord has responsibility to ensure that residents are not exposed to cold indoor temperatures within the dwelling. This responsibility does not extend to the corridors of the building (paragraph 3).
  2. It is evident that the resident does not consider it fair that residents on the lower floors, including the resident, have a temperature outside their front door that is much lower than the flats on the top floor. By the resident’s readings there can be a difference of 15 degrees Celsius (paragraph 11). This may have a consequent effect on the indoor temperature of the flats on the lower floors which are exposed to the corridor and/or stairwell.
  3. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles include the principle “be fair”. While the landlord is not obligated to keep the internal corridors at a certain temperature, it would be fair for the landlord to ensure that there are not great discrepancies in the temperature between the top and other floors. It is evident that the resident’s view is that the measures previously carried out following the Ombudsman’s earlier intervention (paragraph 7) have not improved the temperature on the lower floors.
  4. Given that, it would be fair for the landlord to re-engage with the resident to try to resolve matters. I have made a recommendation, below, which involves the contractors who installed the AOV system as they are the specialists and it would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance they give.
  5. The Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s concerns about the caretaker; this would be a matter for them to take up with their employer in the first instance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports that the property is too cold – due to the location and operation of the AOV system.

Reasons

  1. The landlord is under no obligation to keep the corridors of the block at a certain temperate as they are not used as living areas. However, as the measures undertaken so far have not resolved matters, it would be fair to re-engage with the resident at this stage to try to resolve matters.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord meets with the resident and its relevant contractors to listen to his concerns and for the landlord to be guided by the advice given by the contractors in trying to resolve matters.