Karbon Homes Limited inc Byker Community Trust (202222468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222468

Karbon Homes Limited

21 March 2024

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of a stairlift to the communal stairs of her scheme and what might happen in the event that the main passenger lift failed.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 4 July 2011. The resident has advised this service that she is a wheelchair user, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident has mobility issues. The property is a 2-bedroom apartment in a three storey, purpose built sheltered housing scheme containing a mix of 38 one and two-bedroom apartments (including one guest apartment).
On 20 December 2021, a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) was carried out by an independent Chartered Surveying Consultant. This noted that the stairlift presented a ‘‘significant incursion which restricts the stair width may slow down the escape process as other residents may not be able to pass the stair lift whilst it is being used. Further to this, this will also present a potential hazard to fire fighters accessing the upper floors from this staircase’’. It was recommended that the stairlift ‘‘be removed to prevent restrictions within the staircase’’.
In February 2022 the resident raised concerns about the removal of the stairlift, stating that it had been in place for years, that residents with mobility issues would be unable to use the stairs if the passenger lift was out of service and that she had spoken to to her local fire station and was told they knew of no legislation about removal because of fire regulations.
The landlord attended a resident’s meeting at the resident’s scheme on 18 February 2022. In a follow up email on 21 February 2022 the landlord said that it recognised that the stairlift had been a convenient alternative to the main passenger lift, however it had compromised the stair as an escape route, as other residents may not be able to pass the stairlift whilst it is being used. The landlord went on to say that this would also present a potential hazard to fire fighters accessing the upper floors from this staircase or residents trying to leave the building in an emergency situation.
The resident raised her concerns again in a subsequent Sheltered Housing Forum on 3 March 2022, following which the stairlift was removed on 15 March 2022.
On 20 December 2022, the resident submitted a web complaint to this Service about the landlord’s removal of the stairlift. The resident said that the passenger lift had been out of service for the whole weekend. The resident said that the engineer could not find a fault but an hour later it went off again. The resident said that several residents on the top floor needed the stairlift and another resident had to be carried up the stairs by 3 family members. The resident also said that 3 weeks previously the lift had to be turned off by as there was a flood in the scheme that needed to be pumped out by the fire brigade. The resident said that as a resolution she would like another stairlift installed.
This Service contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 asking that it responds to the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 1 complaint response, on 3 February 2023, the landlord:
1. Explained that the Fire Risk Assessment, carried out on 20 December 2021 had confirmed that the stairlift fell short of the minimum clear width required within Part B of the Building Regulations.
2. Outlined its contact with the resident, and other residents regarding this matter, including its letter to resident in February 2022 advising of the stairlift removal and its attendance at a residents meeting on 18 February 2022.
3. Acknowledged and ‘‘sincerely apologised’’ for its initial poor communication in relation to the reasons behind the stairlift removal and said that it would ensure that in future the reasons behind such works are communicated to residents up front and that a formal consultation takes place in advance of the works.
With regards to the issues with the main passenger lift the landlord said:
1. Its contactor had attended on 4 separate occasions in early December 2022. The first being on 2 December 2022 and then on 6 December 2022, on both occasions the engineer reported the lift was in service on arrival and no faults were found when tested.
2. On the third occasion 9 December 2022 (a Friday) the lift was also in service on arrival, the engineer reported they spoke to residents and following checks found there to be an issue with the batteries to the shaft panel and new batteries were ordered and replaced the next working day 12 December 2022 (a Monday).
3. In all instances the lift contactor attended within hours of the faults being reported and therefore there had been no failure of service in that respect. Unfortunately, before the batteries could be replaced the issue reoccurred on the 10 December 2022. The lift contactor attended the same day but was unable to get the lift back into service, so the lift was left out of service for the remainder of the weekend.
4. This identified a gap in its processes for making sure that if the lift maintenance contractor could not bring the lift back into service out of hours this needed to be fed back so that it could arrange any necessary support to residents. The landlord also said that it had asked the contractor to include more detail of the checks and tests carried out going forward and to arrange a further investigation specifically relating to the issues experienced in December to make sure that the replacement of the batteries had resolved the issue as far as possible.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about resident’s becoming stranded were the passenger lift to be out of service, the landlord said that:
1. Since appointing a new lift maintenance contractor it had seen improved response times and repair rates and that servicing of all passenger lifts was carried out on a 2-month cycle in line with best practice to ensure that its passenger lifts were maintained to the highest possible standards.
2. It would be looking to implement a robust process to ensure that if a lift could not be brought back into service out of hours then this would be escalated so that it could implement its contingency plans, details of which were included in its response.
The resident escalated her complaint through a number of emails between 2 and 10 February 2023, in which she said that the measurement used to assess the stairlift were wrong as they were taken from the wrong side, that the option of moving to the ground floor was a big thing when you are older and was expensive as well as being stressful at their time of life. The resident also challenged the landlord’s policy of not putting people with mobility problems on the upper floors saying that there was a resident moving in who used a mobility scooter and he had been allocated a property on the first floor.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 1 March 2023, noting that its stage 1 response had set out the reasons why the stairlift had to be removed. The landlord went on to:
1. Explain that where the measurements were taken would not change the outcome, the independent consultant who undertook the Fire Risk Assessment had viewed the staircase holistically as part of the decision-making process. The measurements taken by the fire risk assessor had also been verified to confirm that they were correct.
2. When the fire risk assessor brought this to its attention and advised that the stair lift would restrict the escape route for residents and present a potential hazard to the emergency services, it had to act. It explored all options at length to see if there were any alternatives to retain the stairlift. However, despite its best endeavours the stairlift removal was its only option.
3. Passenger lifts were serviced every two months to ensure they were maintained to a high standard, as such, the likelihood of the lift being out of service for a prolonged period was rare. However, it acknowledged that the lift would fail from time to time and where that to happen it had a robust processes in place to reduce the length of time it was out of service. The landlord referred to resident to its stage 1 response which it said set out the process it would follow if the passenger lift was ever out of service for a prolonged period of time.
4. With regards to the residents concerns in relation to other residents with mobility issues being housed on upper floors, this had been addressed separately and did not form part of this complaint.

Assessment and findings

It should be noted that it is not within the remit of this Service to determine whether or not the stairlift posed a fire safety risk within the scheme, nor whether the stairlift should be replaced. Nor is it within the remit of this Service to challenge the recommendations made by the independent Chartered Surveying Consultant. However, this report will consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to both the recommendations made and the resident’s concerns in line with its obligations.
The landlord’s Communal Areas Policy states that it will ensure compliance with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) and will undertake annual Fire Risk Assessments (FRA’s) of all relevant accommodation it owns, manages or occupies. Risks will be identified and appropriate measures introduced to minimise risk to life and property from fire.
In accordance with this obligation, the landlord arranged for an independent Chartered Surveying Consultant to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment at the resident’s scheme on 20 December 2021. This assessment recommended the the stairlift be removed to prevent restrictions within the staircase.
This investigation understands the resident’s concern about the removal of the stairlift, most especially in terms of her vulnerabilities and those of the other residents at her scheme. However, given the recommendations made, and its obligations to minimise risk to its residents, it was reasonable for landlords to rely on the findings of the consultant’s assessment and to remove the stairlift which it did on 15 March 2022.
When such changes are made to a scheme, the landlord would be expected to advise the resident’s at the earliest opportunity, to clearly explain the reasons for the actions it was about to take and to respond appropriately to any concerns raised. Again, this is particularly the case given the known vulnerabilities of the residents at the scheme.
In this case the landlord wrote to the residents to advise of the removal of the stairlift and attended at least 2 meetings with them where this was discussed. Whilst these were reasonable steps for the landlord to take, the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there were shortcomings in its communication with residents at the initial stages.
Where there are shortcomings in the landlord’s approach, this Service would expect it to not only acknowledge and apologise for those shortcomings but also to consider what changes could be made or actions it might take to prevent the issue from happening again. The landlord did so in this case, stating that it would ensure that in future the reasons behind such works are communicated to residents up front and that a formal consultation takes place in advance of the works.
The resident’s concerns about the removal of the stairlift were understandable and, whilst it would not have been appropriate for it to go against the advice given by its specialist consultant and replace it, it is evident that the landlord recognised, and took seriously, the concern this caused and the potential impact on residents were the main passenger lift to fail. This it did by:
1. Responding to the resident’s concerns about the measurements taken by the consultant and confirming that these measurements had been verified to confirm they were correct.
2. Providing details of the contingency plan it had in place which included:
  1. The Scheme coordinator making a list of those on floors 1 and 2 to identify who had mobility issues and contacting families of resident’s who may need more support if the lift were out of action.
  2. It would look to decant residents if needed to other empty flats within its stock or in a B&B, making sure the property was suitable for their needs. If a wheelchair user was left in the downstairs lounge and could not use the passenger lift to return to their flat by 4pm, it would look to decant them, again making sure the property was suitable for their needs.
  3. For the last year it had been advising wheelchair users to move to a ground floor flat, and had offered this to several residents at the scheme, which had been declined. The landlord said it would continue to offer ground floor flats when they become available as this was the best option for a wheelchair user if there was a fire within the building.
3. Confirming the servicing timescales for main passenger lift, seeking to provide the resident with reassurance with regards to improved response times since appointing a new lift contractor and providing details of the issues with the passenger lift, and the contractors attendance, in December 2022.
In accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord also recognised that there was a gap in its service which it said it would address. This it said it would do by:
1. Making sure the lift contractor fed back if the lift could not be put back in service, so that it could provide the necessary support to residents.
2. Asking it’s lift contractor to include more details of the checks it carried out going forward.
3. Asking its contractor to arrange a further investigation specifically relating to the issues experienced in December 2022 to make sure that the replacement of the batteries had resolved the issue as far as possible.
In summary, whilst the resident’s concerns about the removal of the stairlift were completely understandable, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to advise and explain to the resident the reason for the removal if the stairlift, although it did note that it could have given a more detailed explanation at an earlier point. It also responded to the resident’s concerns about what could happen in the event of a main passenger lift failing, in particular setting out it contingency plan for any such occurrence. As a result, the Ombudsman has found no evidence of service failure on the part of the landlord in relation to the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the removal of a stairlift to the communal stairs of her scheme and what might happen in the event that the main passenger lift failed.