Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202103099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103099

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

26 January 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 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 response to the resident’s reports about non-residents causing anti-social behaviour (ASB) in communal areas of the building and lighting fires.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy confirms that examples of ASB include deliberate damage to other persons property, people being under the influence of drugs, and causing alarm or distress. The landlord will assess the seriousness of the ASB reported, fully investigate the reports, use all available and appropriate powers to address and resolve the ASB, and inform the resident when the case is closed, and the reasons for doing so.
Section 2.4 of the landlord’s fire policy confirms it will carry out fire safety risk assessments on tenanted blocks and communal areas every two years.
As per the landlord’s tenant handbook, it aims to complete routine repairs which can be left for a reasonable period without causing serious inconvenience within 28 days.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder for the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.

Summary of events

On 26 July 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He was unhappy that the trade button for the communal front door allowed anyone to enter the building, and there had been a history of drugs being used in the communal areas of the building as well as vandalism. He said that the landlord had agreed to a trial period where the trade button was disabled, yet this had not happened. He wanted the trade button to be removed to prevent unauthorised access to the building.
On 7 and 28 August, and 18 September 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it informed the resident that it needed additional time to conclude its investigations during the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 13 October 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It confirmed that it had been unable to locate any evidence of the agreement to trial the disabling of the trade button on the front door to the building. As it supported the need to minimise any future risk of vandalism or damage, it recommended a local consultation to understand the preferences of all residents. It further confirmed that it would be making improvements to the way its residents reported vandalism, and that it would arrange to remedy the damaged paintwork in the communal area which had started to show signs of wear and tear.
In October 2020, the landlord consulted with its residents regarding a proposal to remove the trade button on the front door of the building, which allowed access between 9am – 5pm every day. Of 37 residents, 11 responses were received, with 7 voting for no change, 2 voting to reduce the hours the button was active, and the resident who had complained voting for the trade button access to be removed. The landlord wrote to all residents on 6 November 2020 to confirm that, in accordance with majority of respondents, it would be making no changes to the trade button.
On 9 December 2020, the resident submitted a further formal complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. He reiterated his concerns regarding the trade button. He was also unhappy with the rear door of the building, which was frequently left open and had suffered damage which he believed was caused intentionally to prevent the door from locking. The paintwork to the handrail on the communal staircase had also been damaged.
2. He expressed dissatisfaction that a decision had been made on the consultation it had carried out in October 2020, despite only 11 responses having been received.
3. He had experienced difficulties in obtaining a crime reference number from the police, as the police would only provide this to the landlord; he wanted the crime reference number to ensure he would not be charged for the damage caused as a result of vandalism, which he was not prepared to pay until the trade button had been disabled.
On 15 December 2020, the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had fully consulted with all residents on the communal door trade timings, and it had based its decision on the feedback it had received. It was satisfied that sufficient responses had been received to support this decision. It was satisfied that its actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB were proportionate based on the evidence available of the alleged perpetrators. It confirmed that if it was clear that there had been vandalism, it would ensure that the cost of repair would not be added to leaseholder’s service charge bills. However, the resident would be expected to pay the service charges due, as per his lease agreement.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any further correspondence between the resident and the landlord from 15 December 2020 to 8 May 2021.
On 8 May 2021, the resident submitted a further complaint. He reported that there had been two fires in the building, on 6 and 8 May 2021. He was concerned that the communal door trade timings were allowing vandals into the building, who were then lighting fires.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident. The landlord confirmed that both fires had been reported to the police, who were investigating. The resident said he felt “at risk” and wanted the trade button to be removed from the communal front door. He also suggested the landlord put anti-climb paint to the walls to the rear of the block, as vandals were climbing over the bins to get over the fence.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had received a further complaint from the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. In addition to the points he had raised on 8 May 2021, he felt that the fires were caused because the trade button allowed entry to anybody, and the rear door to the building was subjected to damage. The resident and his wife had health problems, and had suffered from smoke inhalation following the fires.
2. There had been damage to the communal staircase handrail “twice” which now needed to be repainted, and the walls had been scuffed and stained.
3. He felt that the only solution was to remove the trade button from the front door to the building, as he was concerned of a more serious event in the future. He also expressed disappointment in the consultation process, as those residents were not impacted by the fires in the same way that he was, as only the front door to his property was accessed via the communal stairwell where the fires had been started.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed it had reviewed the resident’s feedback in respect to the resident’s reports of people using the communal bins to get over the fence; it had assessed it to be more appropriate to move the bins to address this issue.
On 16 May 2021, the police emailed the landlord to confirm that the investigation into the reported arson in the building had been unsuccessful. As a result, the criminal case was closed.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident. In respect to the resident’s concerns over the trade button on the front door to the building, it concluded that a new consultation should be carried out. In respect to the damage caused following the fires in the building, the landlord explained that this would be covered by its insurance, with the repairs to be carried out shortly. It had previously carried out a fire-risk assessment in January 2019, and it would arrange for a new assessment to be carried out.
On 28 May 2021, the resident submitted his stage two complaint to the landlord. He remained dissatisfied as he felt that the building was “not secure [for] eight hours every day, and causing ASB in the building. He did not feel that the trade button was necessary as residents had an intercom system to allow tradespeople in.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it carried out a fire-risk assessment of the building. It detailed an action plan to check the resident’s and neighbouring exit doors, and replace these if they did not meet the required standard, within four months. If the doors were to be replaced, they should be listed on the programme for the replacement of fire doors and to be completed after the landlord prioritised all internal fire doors.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It confirmed that a new consultation had begun following the fires, and it had requested responses by 26 June 2021. If the consultation supported the removal of the trade button, it would use the intercom system instead for future tradespeople and deliveries.
2. In respect to the damage caused by the fires, it confirmed that a fire-risk assessment had been carried out, and it awaited the report. It further confirmed that the repairs were under order and would not be charged to leaseholders as they were considered to be criminal damage. It had also made good the damaged paintwork on the communal handrail. It confirmed that it had received no reports of the communal area having been used as a toilet, in response to the resident’s concerns about this.
On 28 June 2021, the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. He was unhappy that the consultation did not include his suggestion to use the intercom for tradespeople and deliveries, which he wanted to be implemented by the landlord in order to resolve his complaint.
2. He did not consider the repair to the paintwork on the communal staircase handrail to have been completed, and the landlord had not yet completed the repair the damage caused following the fires.
The landlord’s records confirm that of the 37 residents in the building, 9 responses were received following the new consultation following the fires, with 4 voting for no change, 3 voting to reduce the hours the button was active, and 2 voting for the trade button access to be removed.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident. It confirmed that it had received the fire-risk assessment and would be carrying out work to install new fire doors to his property and others as well as installing smoke detectors. It did not feel that the resident’s suggestion to remove the trade button, and use the intercom instead, was an effective solution to resolve the matter.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service. He remained dissatisfied as he considered his building to be insecure when the trade button was active. He said the communal areas of the building had suffered two fires, people using the stairwell as a toilet and damaged paintwork. Although he recognised the landlord had installed new fire doors, this did not stop the ASB from occurring in the future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that he considers that the issues affecting his property have exacerbated his and his wife’s medical conditions. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to assess the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer (if it has one) or through the courts, if he considers that his or his wife’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident has said he is dissatisfied with service charges levied by the landlord in relation to projected and actual costs. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (which sets out the rules which govern our system), we will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or increases in service charges or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident can seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case if he wishes to.

The resident’s reports about non-residents causing anti-social behaviour (ASB) in communal areas of the building and lighting fires.

Following the resident’s reports on 26 July 2020 that the trade button on the front door of the building was encouraging ASB, the landlord was expected to assess the seriousness of the ASB reported, fully investigate the complaint, use all available and appropriate powers to address and resolve the ASB, and inform the resident when the case was closed, and the reasons for doing so.
In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions on each occasion when the resident raised his concerns. For example, following the resident’s initial ASB reports, the landlord confirmed to him that it found no evidence of an agreement to trial disabling the trade button; however, it did propose a consultation with its residents on the removal of the trade button. This was a fair response from the landlord, as it needed to understand the preferences of all of the residents within the building before making any changes.
Although the resident has raised concerns over the number of residents who had chosen to participate in the consultation, the landlord has acted reasonably in carrying out the consultation and basing its decision on the preference of the majority of residents who responded. It was also reasonable for the landlord to carry up a follow up consultation following the reports of fires in the building to see if residents’ preferences had changed following the fires. There had been an increase of only one vote in respect to the removal of the trade button following the fires. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the majority of residents in the building did not want to remove the trade button.
The landlord also carried out an updated fire-risk assessment for the building following the fires on 6 and 8 May 2021, which identified a number of doors in communal areas which needed to be inspected for possible replacement. It committed to carrying out this work, as well as additional work to install smoke detectors in the building. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take in response to the fires, to seek to improve the fire safety within the building. It is recognised that the previous fire assessment was completed in January 2019, which meant that in line with the landlord’s policy, a new fire risk assessment was due in January 2021. It is understandable that the fire risk assessment was delayed due to the impact of covid 19 restrictions on the landlord’s service and the landlord acted reasonably in arranging the assessment once restrictions were eased.
In respect to the resident’s reports of ASB in the communal areas of the building, including the two fires, the landlord has evidenced that it had been in contact with the police, who were not successful in their investigations of the fires and closed the criminal investigation into these incidents. It is reasonable for the landlord to adopt the same approach as the police in such instances, as the alleged perpetrators could not be identified, which meant that the landlord could not take any further action against the individuals responsible.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about non-residents using bins to climb over the fence at the back of the building. It is understood that the resident wanted the landlord to install anti-climbing paint in this area but the landlord said it would move the bins instead, to prevent them from being used to climb over the fence. Until the bins have been moved, it would be impossible to know with certainty whether this would be sufficient to resolve the problem. It is unclear from the information provided whether the bins have been moved. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord should confirm to the resident whether it had now moved the bins, and if not, it should explain the reasons why this has not yet been done and confirm its strategy to address this issue. If the resident continues to report non-residents climbing over the fence to access the building, the landlord should respond accordingly and consider whether other measures, such as anti-climbing paint are necessary to resolve this issue.
The landlord’s records show it has carried out repairs in response to the resident’s reports of damage to the paintwork on the communal staircase. This work was not completed within the 28 days the tenant handbook advises for routine repairs. However, the landlord updated the resident about the repair within 14 days and the repair was completed within a further 28 days. Therefore, it appears that although there was some delay to the repair, the delay was not significant.
Although the landlord has said it has completed repairs to the communal areas, the resident has advised in his complaint to the Ombudsman that the repairs have not been completed. Therefore, the landlord should provide the resident with an update on the repair to the damaged paintwork, and the progress of the communal repairs following the fires.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint response took longer than the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 July 2020 yet he did not receive a formal response until 13 October 2020, nearly three months after the initial complaint and two and a half months after the resident should have received a response. The landlord has cited the reason for this as the Covid-19 pandemic which had an impact on its ability to fulfil its usual obligations. It is understandable that, in circumstances such as this, the landlord’s ability to provide a normal service may be somewhat hindered. The landlord has evidenced that it wrote to the resident on three occasions to explain that it needed additional time to respond to his complaint, which was reasonable under the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about non-residents causing anti-social behaviour (ASB) in communal areas of the building and lighting fires.

Reasons

The landlord has evidenced that it has considered the resident’s request to remove the trade button from the front door of the building. It has twice consulted with its residents on the proposal to remove the trade button, with the majority of residents who voted, preferring for the trade button to remain.
Following the fires in the communal areas of the building, the landlord arranged a new fire risk assessment, and committed to carrying out the work it proposed, and additional work to improve the fire safety of the building.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident within four weeks to:
1. Provide him with an update on the communal repairs to the damaged paintwork, and to the areas in need of repair following the fires.
2. Confirm whether it had now moved the bins to prevent them from being used to climb over the fence, and if not, to explain the reasons why, and the action it would be taking to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint.