Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association Limited (202000920)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000920

Lambeth & Southwark Housing Association Limited

Clarion Housing Association

8 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s windows.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns of a sewage smell and mould within the property.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety.
5. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal areas.
6. Response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
7. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope of investigation

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose built-block (the building). The property is situated on the top floor of the building.
The resident’s landlord (the landlord), Lambeth and Southwark Housing Association, is the leaseholder of the property.
Clarion Housing Association (landlord A) is the freeholder of the building. Landlord A is also a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
In addition to raising a complaint with her landlord, the resident also made a complaint to landlord A regarding its response to her concerns about the temperature within the property. Landlord A responded to the complaint under its complaint procedure. In responding to the complaint about the temperature landlord A also addressed concerns which the resident had raised in relation to fire safety and a property transfer.
Paragraph 50 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may conduct further investigation beyond the initial complaint or landlord to establish whether any presenting evidence of service failure is indicative of a systemic failing”.
While there is no landlord and tenant relation between the resident and landlord A, the Ombudsman considers that it is appropriate to apply paragraph 50 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and carry out a joint investigation into the actions of both member landlords at the same time. This is because it will enable the Ombudsman to fully investigate the issues which the resident has raised in relation to her tenancy. It is also appropriate as:
1. The landlord set out that it had been unable to address some of the resident’s concerns due to the service it had received from landlord A and therefore this investigation will consider whether its position was reasonable.
2. Landlord A provided a formal response to the resident under its complaint procedure confirming a right of referral to this Service if she was not happy with its position.
3. To consider if there had been any failings on the part of landlord A in respect of its legal obligations in maintaining the building.
Therefore, and in accordance with paragraph 50 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman’s determination will consider both the landlord’s and landlord A’s response to the following points of the complaint definition:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety.
3. Response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
4. Complaint handling.

Summary of events

In early 2020 the resident contacted this Service regarding various issues concerning her tenancy. The resident stated that despite raising her concerns with the landlord it had failed to respond to or address them. As this Service could not identify that the resident had pursued her concerns under the landlord’s complaint procedure she was advised to submit a formal complaint to the landlord outlining her concerns, requesting that it provide her with a formal response under its complaint procedure.
On 17 June 2020 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The resident set out that her complaint concerned:
1. The property’s temperature. The resident explained that the temperature within the property was extreme, frequently reaching 30 degrees. The resident noted that the temperature was impacting on her health and that of her children.
2. The property’s windows. The resident explained that there was “no safe way to open the windows with small children”. The resident noted that she also had a fear of heights.
3. Fire safety.
  1. The resident explained that despite a recent fire in the building caused by abandoned furniture the landlord had failed to address fly tipping.
  2. The resident stated that she had been told by a fire officer that the “insulation” in the building’s walls was a “grey area” which she found concerning. The resident requested further information regarding the insulation and what risk it posed.
  3. The resident stated that she was concerned that the stay put policy in respect of a fire was not appropriate as “communal doors and windows [were] often propped open by residents” allowing a fire to spread. The resident also noted that some residents kept flammable products on their balconies.
4. Anti-social behaviour. The resident explained that she had witnessed drug dealers near the bin area and homeless people sleeping within the building’s grounds.
5. Sewage smell. The resident stated that a sewage smell entered the property through the bathroom.
6. Mould. The resident stated that the bathroom had mould.
7. Sink hole. The resident stated that there was a sink hole in the building’s carpark which had not been remedied.
8. Pigeon mess. The resident stated that “pigeon faeces surrounded the block and entrance area”.
9. The lift. The resident asked the landlord to explain why she had received a letter from it stating “holding the doors open with buggies was causing damage to the lifts”. The resident stated that the landlord’s correspondence was “very discriminatory”. The resident noted that the lift doors frequently closed on her when she was entering or exiting the lift with her buggy which was dangerous.
10. Caretaking. The resident stated that the cleaners were not ensuring that the communal areas were appropriately sanitized, which was unsatisfactory due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
11. Parking. The resident said that she felt discriminated against as she had been unable to purchase a parking permit for the building’s carpark.
The resident concluded by setting out that the complaint was impacting negatively on her mental health. The resident also noted that she appreciated that the landlord had provided her with information on how to request a property transfer as it was aware that she no longer wished to live in the property.
On 19 June 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Within its correspondence the landlord noted:
1. It had asked landlord A for an update by the end of June 2020 on the issues which the resident had raised in order for it to be able to respond to the complaint.
2. In respect of the windows, landlords were not required to install window restrictors, however it was recommended that window restrictors were installed in properties above the first floor. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore raised an order to fit window restrictors in the property.
3. It understood that the resident wished to be rehoused. The landlord confirmed that it would support the resident’s request to be rehoused by the local authority.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to cancel the order for window restrictors as the windows in the property already had restrictors. The resident explained that she was concerned that that it was not safe to fully open the windows to let air circulate in the property in order to try and cool it down. The resident confirmed that she did not open the windows beyond the “first notch on the gage”. In response the landlord confirmed that it would cancel the work order.
On 25 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to provide further information to support her complaint. The resident provided details of health conditions which she and her children experienced due to the temperature in the property, in addition to providing photos showing homeless people sleeping in the building’s grounds. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence, confirming that it would be reviewed as part of its consideration of the complaint.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing its response.
2. The resident was currently on its transfer waiting list to be rehoused. The landlord confirmed that it did not have any other properties within the area and it was therefore “very difficult to advise when [the resident] would be offered alternative accommodation”, including as it was a very small housing association with limited stock.
3. The fabric of the building, communal landing, hallways, stairwells, car park and the communal heating system were the responsibility of landlord A to maintain and repair.
4. Landlord A had prepared a safety report in relation to the fire which occurred externally to the building on 9 May 2020. The landlord confirmed that the report had previously been provided to all residents, however it had enclosed the report again.
5. Landlord A had commissioned an inspection and report on excessive heat to the building. The landlord confirmed that once landlord A had confirmed the work necessary to reduce heat in the building it would share this information.
6. Landlord A had advised it that the reasons for the lifts breaking down frequently was due to tenant misuse. The landlord advised that it had been reported that tenants were forcing the doors open and overloading the lifts. The landlord noted that the lift could cater up to 630kg of weight. The landlord added that landlord A had placed contact numbers in the lift in case of emergencies.
7. It would review the photographs which the resident had provided showing mould in the bathroom and “the appropriate action/ response [would] be provided”.
8. Landlord A would be installing preventive measures to help prevent pigeons congregating on the building. The landlord noted that the resident already had netting around the property’s balcony. The landlord added that landlord A had also commissioned a contractor to clean and clear the pigeon mess from the building.
9. Landlord A was reviewing whether CCTV should be installed in relation to ASB.
10. Landlord A had advised it that tenants had been fly tipping large items outside of the building, in addition to non-residents. The landlord confirmed that fly tipping was a “difficult problem to resolve” including as it did not have information about the fly tippers. The landlord added that it had been noted that tenants were not locking the bin chamber after use which had allowed unauthorised access.
11. There was a cleaning contract in place for the building which was monitored by landlord A. The landlord confirmed that the estate inspections recorded that the cleaning was of a satisfactory standard.
12. Landlord A had advised that sometimes the drains in the carpark did get blocked however they were cleared as soon as possible when it was reported.
13. It was waiting for further information from landlord A in relation to parking permits for the carpark and would update the resident in due course.
14. Landlord A had confirmed that the external drains had been cleared which should resolve the sewage smell which the resident had experienced.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it was actively working with landlord A to resolve the issues in the building to provide positive outcomes for its tenants.
On the same day the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She had been told previously that the landlord was waiting for landlord A to address the concerns which she had raised however no resolution had been achieved.
2. Due to the excessive temperature in the property she and her children were “suffering”, including skin problems.
3. The recent fire had caused her “trauma”. The resident noted that the landlord had not addressed the health and safety concerns which she had raised in relation to fire safety in the building, including insulation.
4. The response addressing mould was “standard advice”.
5. She enclosed two pictures showing the property’s windows which her children could fit through easily.
6. She was willing to manage her arrears in order to progress a property transfer.
The resident concluded by confirming the landlord had failed to address her complaint as it had offered no solutions.
In response, and also on 8 July 2020, the landlord replied to the resident confirming that her complaint would be considered at stage two of its complaint procedure. Within its response the landlord noted:
1. Given the information which the resident had provided in relation to the windows it suggested that restrictors were installed for safety reasons.
2. It was doing all it could do to find the resident alternative accommodation.
3. It had to work with landlord A to resolve the issues as it did not own the building.
The resident replied confirming that the window had restrictors which were not damaged. The resident explained that when the windows were open on the first setting it did not allow air to circulate, and when they were open on the second setting the gap was wide enough to allow a child to pass through.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it would support the resident’s application for re-housing with the local authority.
On 10 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had explored a reciprocal arrangement with a second local authority, as she had requested. The landlord confirmed that the local authority advised that a reciprocal transfer would not be possible however it would see if any of their tenants would like to consider a mutual exchange. In response the resident stated that she would like her complaint to be considered at stage two.
On 17 August 2020 the landlord confirmed that in order to progress the resident’s complaint to stage two she must set out why she considered that its stage one response was unsatisfactory. Within its email the landlord provided information on the Mayor’s Housing Moves Scheme which enabled tenants within a London Borough to apply for housing within another borough.
On the same day the resident confirmed that she would like to escalate her complaint to stage two for the following reasons:
1. No resolution to resolve excessive heat in the property.
2. No response to her concerns regarding fire safety, including the building’s insulation.
3. The netting on her balcony, to deter pigeons, had been removed which meant that she was no longer able to keep her balcony door open to help reduce heat in the property.
4. CCTV had not been explored.
5. Fly tipping remained an issue.
6. She continued to experience a sewage smell within the property.
7. The fire brigade had attended the property however no explanation had been provided to confirm the reason behind its visit.
8. It was not clear why landlord A had issued her with a letter setting out that lift doors closing on her pushchair and transporting white goods in the lift was misuse.
9. The landlord had failed to assist her with a property transfer, including internally and via the local authority.
10. The situation was impacting on her mental health and her children’s physical health.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident advising that her complaint would not be escalated as she was out of time. In response the resident replied stating that the landlord had committed to responding to her complaint at stage two in July 2020. The landlord replied confirming that it would respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two.
On 31 August 2020 the resident provided some additional information in respect of her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The property was negatively impacting on her family’s health, including muscle pains, prickly heat and eczema. The resident also noted that she was suffering from anxiety which was causing her to check that the property’s windows were closed in the middle of the night and that the building was not on fire.
2. She was unable to open her windows sufficiently, and to a safe amount, to circulate air in the property.
3. She had not been given information on the insulation used within the building which was causing her concern.
4. The building had experienced a chemical leak in the past. The resident said that she was concerned that this may occur again and cause a fire.
5. She was concerned that the stay put policy in the event of a fire was not appropriate.
6. Sprinklers had not been installed in the building in line with new legislation.
7. Fly-tipping continued to be a problem.
8. ASB occurred in and around the building, including drug users.
9. The landlord’s response to rehouse her was unsatisfactory.
10. The lifts in the building were cheap and were the cause of multiple breakdowns. The resident stated that it was unsatisfactory that tenant misuse was blamed for the breakdowns.
On 1 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was “extremely disappointed by the poor service” it had received from landlord A in relation to the management of a number of aspects in respect of the building. The landlord confirmed that “last year” it met with landlord A with its legal representative to remind it of its obligations as head leaseholder. The landlord noted that there had been a “recent improvement with matters such as, but not limited to lift reliability, parking and pigeon mess”. The landlord confirmed that it was now having regular meetings with landlord A.
2. While it was sensitive to heat retention within the property there was very little it could do to resolve the issue. The landlord confirmed that it had however managed to get landlord A to agree to undertake a review of the heating system within the block. The landlord noted that the building would have been built to current building regulations.
3. The recent fire was “minor”, having been contained to the bin store, however it understood that it would have caused distress.
4. The cladding on the building was surveyed shortly after the Grenfell fire and was “passed as safe”. The landlord noted that the fire service had recommended a stay put policy should there be a fire affecting the block.
5. The resident should take up its offer to have “additional locks” fitted to the property’s windows if she felt that they were not safe.
The landlord concluded that it continued to seek to ensure that the building was well managed by landlord A. The landlord suggested that the resident could make a complaint directly to landlord A on the matters which it had responsibility.
Also on 1 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence dated 31 August 2020. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident was experiencing anxiety as a result of her housing situation.
2. The cladding on the building had been checked and was confirmed as safe.
3. The recent fire was in the bin store and was contained.
4. It had offered to install additional windows restrictors to the window.
5. The leak which occurred was a non-toxic substance and there was no risk to health.
6. The stay put policy was on the advice of the fire brigade.
7. The installation of sprinklers was a requirement for new buildings and they did not need to be installed retrospectively.
8. It had raised fly tipping with landlord A.
9. It understood that ASB was “less severe than it had been in the past” however it continued to work with the police and safer neighbourhood team to contain the issue.
10. Landlord A had informed it that a number of lift faults were due to misuse.
Later on 1 September 2020 the resident responded to request to escalate her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. She had provided the landlord with evidence of medication to support the impact of the property on her family’s health.
2. ASB had got much worse and there had been no involvement from the safer neighbourhood team.
3. The property’s windows did not need additional restrictors. The resident confirmed that the “issue [was] that [they] opened too wide” to safely help reduce the temperature in the property.
4. Despite the landlord’s reassurances on the building’s cladding she remained concerned regarding fire safety.
On 17 September 2020 the landlord confirmed that it was able to offer a zoom panel hearing to consider the resident’s complaint at stage three.
On 25 September 2020 the resident responded confirming that she agreed a panel hearing was the best way forward to seek to resolve her complaint.
On 17 October 2020 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the panel hearing as she had not heard from it.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord responded. The landlord apologised for not contacting the resident to arrange the panel hearing, however noted that the officer responsible had been ill. The landlord asked the resident to confirm her availability for the panel hearing.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord provided the resident with the outcome of the panel hearing which was held in mid-November 2020 – details provided in the following paragraph. The landlord confirmed that if the resident was not happy with the final outcome to her complaint she may refer it to this Service for adjudication.
The letter from the chair of the panel hearing set out:
1. A representative from landlord A attended the panel hearing.
2. The panel considered that the resident’s complaint fell under four headings, namely:
  1. The heating in the property.
  2. The windows in the property.
  3. The building’s common areas, fire safety and outside environment.
  4. The resident’s request to move.
3. In respect of the heating in the property:
  1. Landlord A acknowledged that the temperature in the building was “uncomfortably and unreasonably high”. Landlord A confirmed that it was working on a solution to reduce heating levels soon, however advised that “fundamental improvement [was] likely to take longer”.
  2. The landlord would keep in contact with landlord A regarding the works and provide feedback to the resident.
4. In respect of the windows in the property:
  1. The landlord and landlord A would check to determine who was responsible under the terms of the property’s lease for ensuring that the windows were fit and safe for purpose. Depending on the outcome, either the landlord or landlord A would “assess whether it was feasible to make whatever changes [the resident] considered to be necessary”.
5. In respect of the building’s common areas, fire safety and outside environment:
  1. The panel discussed quality of cleaning, the unreliability of the lift, the recent fire, fire safety including cladding, number of times the fire alarm had sounded and ASB during the hearing,
  2. Landlord A to take steps to provide answers and actions to the resolve the resident’s concerns.
  3. The landlord to keep in contact with landlord A to ensure that issues were addressed.
6. In respect of the resident’s request to move:
  1. The panel agreed that the property was “not an ideal environment” for the resident, including due to her “mental and emotional issues”.
  2. The landlord agreed that the resident would be “treated as a high priority move” and it would continue to assist in seeking a property move.
  3. The resident to provide information from her GP to demonstrate how urgent a property transfer was.
  4. Landlord A to check whether it could facilitate a move within its own housing stock.
  5. The landlord to “use energy, best endeavours and imagination to increase the possibility of an early move” for the resident.
Following the landlord’s final response the resident referred her complaint to this Service for consideration as the landlord’s final response did “not actually resolve any of the issues raised”.
On 7 March 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to landlord A. In summary the resident said:
1. The communal heating system was defective causing over-heating. The resident stated that the property was uninhabitable, especially during the summer months. The resident reported that this was impacting on her mental health. Within her complaint the resident noted that the heating system had recently broken down causing a loss of heating and hot water.
2. She had recently received a letter from landlord A noting “some risks” in respect of the building’s external walls, however no further information had been provided.
3. She was concerned that the building’s stay put policy in case of a fire was no longer appropriate.
4. The landlord had agreed to move her to alternative accommodation, however it currently did not have any available. The resident noted that she had been informed that the landlord was in touch with landlord A regarding a reciprocal transfer.
In late March 2021 landlord A contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. Landlord A’s record of the conversation noted that in addition to reiterating her complaint dated 7 March 2021 the resident reported that it was unsatisfactory that she was unable to open her windows safely in the property to help regulate the temperature.
On 16 April 2021 landlord A provided its stage one response. In summary landlord A said:
1. In respect of the communal boiler and over-heating:
  1. Its heating contractor were aware of heating issues within the building following a survey. Landlord A confirmed that its heating contractor was assessing what works it could complete to address the problem.
  2. Its aim was to “avoid as much heat escaping from the heating system in communal areas… but this [would] require some extensive remedial work [which would] require some planning”. Landlord A confirmed that this was being investigated and once works had been agreed all residents would be notified.
  3. Modern buildings were designed to be heat efficient and “a side effect of that efficiency [could] mean that some buildings [did] feel warmer than residents would like”.
  4. It noted that the resident had reported a loss of heating and hot water. Landlord A confirmed that its records showed that heating and hot water breakdowns had been restored within its seven-day service level agreement. Landlord A added that the “pressurised system” had recently been replaced which should “fully resolve the issue”. Landlord A apologised for any inconvenience caused.
2. In respect of fire safety:
  1. It meet with the landlord on 13 April 2021 to discuss “the full scoping of remedial works” in relation to fire safety.
  2. It had commissioned a report from a Chartered Fire Engineer’s report which indicated that “some building work” was required to improve fire safety. Landlord A confirmed that it was evaluating the options. Landlord A advised that it would inform the landlord when it had a plan for carrying out the remedial works.
  3. The evacuation strategy for the building remained “stay put”. Landlord A set out that it had installed enhanced heat and smoke detectors within the properties to give the earliest possible warning of a fire.
3. It would like to offer the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the issues which the resident had experienced.
On 23 April 2021 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. The resident stated that she was displeased with landlord A’s response as it did not take into account the full “impact on [her] mental and physical health” and that of her children. The resident also added that landlord A had failed to address her concerns regarding the windows in the property. The resident asked landlord A to “look at [her] individual circumstances and help [her] to move”.
On 8 June 2021 landlord A provided its final response. In summary landlord A said:
1. It understood that the resident’s outstanding concerns were that:
  1. It had failed to “reflect or recognise” the impact the high temperatures were having on her physical and mental health.
  2. Fire risks to residents.
  3. It had failed to address her concerns that she was unable to safely use the windows in the property.
2. It was aware of the “ongoing issues” in the building in respect of high temperatures and it was working with its contractor to resolve the problem. Landlord A noted that the works “were taking some time to plan and complete”. Landlord A set out that it had met with its contractor in May 2021 to agree a scope of works to resolve “issues with the heating system and overheating in the property”. Landlord A confirmed that the work would be carried out in phases “addressing the most critical elements first”. Landlord A advised that the heating system was “operating but not as effectively as it could be and [this was] what [it was] trying to remedy”. Landlord A stated that all residents would be notified of works to address “these issues” going forward.
3. It had commissioned an intrusive inspection of the building which was completed by a Chartered Fire Engineer. Landlord A confirmed that the report following the inspection recommended remedial actions which it was “evaluation” currently. Landlord A advised there no change in the building’s evacuation strategy was required and it would be implementing measures to address the recommendations made. Landlord A set out that while it understood that the recent fire in the building had caused the resident concern its “approach [was] considered by the Chartered Fire Engineer to be proportionate to the risks associated with the building.”
4. As the resident was not one of its tenants it was unable to offer alternative accommodation directly to her. Landlord A explained that in order to consider a move to one of its property’s the landlord would need to contact the local authority as it has 100% nomination rights.
Landlord A concluded by confirming that if the resident was not satisfied with its response she may refer her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings – the landlord

Scope of investigation

The resident has suggested that as a result of her living conditions and the landlord’s, and landlord A’s, inaction her health and her children’s health has been adversely impacted. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the resident’s living conditions and the deterioration of her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property

As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building it is not responsible for its structure, its exterior or the maintenance of its communal heating system. This is the responsibility of landlord A who is the freeholder. However, as the resident’s contract for the property is with the landlord, not landlord A, the Ombudsman would expect to see pro-active engagement by the landlord with landlord A to raise the resident’s concerns regarding extreme temperatures and to pursue a resolution and outcome.
The landlord has provided its records demonstrating its response to the resident’s concerns in respect of extreme temperatures from 2018.
Prior to the resident’s complaint in June 2020, the evidence shows that the landlord did raise the issue of extreme temperatures with landlord A in August 2018 and September 2019. The evidence shows that in September 2019 landlord A committed to instructing an expert to inspect the heating system to “provide advice… on how to tackle these issues”. Following landlord A’s commitment the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence, between September 2019 and June 2020, which demonstrates that the landlord actively pursued landlord A for an update or outcome to the inspection. This is unsatisfactory. As the landlord was aware of the issue which was impacting its residents and had been ongoing since at least 2018, the landlord should have taken steps to follow up on the outcome of the inspection, and next steps – if any, in order for it to keep its residents informed and to manage their expectations.
In responding to the complaint it was the landlord’s position that as landlord A had agreed to undertake a review of the heating system there was little else it could do to progress the matter, as it was reliant on the actions of landlord A. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord could not undertake the review/ inspection of the heating system itself, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was not satisfactory. As the inspection had been outstanding for a prolonged period of time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have requested an action plan from landlord A for the review/ inspection which detailed a timescale, even if provisional. This would have demonstrated to the resident, and the Ombudsman, that the landlord was committed to holding landlord A to account in relation to the issue and in securing a resolution.
Following the landlord’s final response in December 2020 the Ombudsman has not identified any updates from landlord to the resident regarding the review of the heating system by landlord A. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord had committed to providing feedback to the resident while the issue was outstanding. It also suggests to the Ombudsman that the landlord was not proactively pursuing landlord A in relation to the matter to achieve a resolution. In an update to the Ombudsman on 1 October 2021 the landlord advised that it was in the process of checking with landlord A whether work to the heating system had been completed, thus emphasising a lack of oversight in respect of the matter.
The Ombudsman cannot see that during the period under investigation the landlord offered to inspect the property itself in relation to extreme temperatures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would have been a reasonable course of action, while it was pursing landlord A, to determine if the issue was due to an internal problem affecting the property only, such as a faulty thermostat, or whether there were any simple actions which it could take to provide temporary relief to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s windows

The resident’s concerns regarding the windows in the property related to health and safety rather than a repair issue. The resident stated that the windows could not be safely opened to allow sufficient air to circulate the property, without creating a risk to her children.
The evidence shows that while the complaint was live the landlord offered to install window restrictors in the property to allay the resident’s concerns regarding risk to her children and to allow air to circulate the property. In response the resident declined as she explained that the windows already had restrictors installed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, on notification that window restrictors were already installed in the property, the landlord should have arranged to inspect the windows in order to determine if the current restrictors were fit for purpose and whether there was a health and safety issue which required its, or landlord A’s, intervention. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not do so.
As part of its final response the landlord confirmed that it would check the property’s lease to determine who was responsible for the windows so that the responsible party could assess whether it was feasible to make changes to them. The Ombudsman has not seen that the landlord took this action following the end of the complaint procedure. This is unsatisfactory as it was an action it committed to undertaking in order to resolve the complaint. In an update to this Service on 1 October 2021 the landlord said that the outstanding issue was that the resident “cannot open the windows too wide in case her daughter falls out”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of a sewage smell and mould within the property

At stage one the landlord confirmed that the external drains had been cleared which should resolve the sewage smell experienced by the resident. While it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the issue had been resolved following this action, on notification from the resident within her escalation requests that the smell persisted it should have undertaken an inspection to determine if there was a repair issue for which it was responsible for addressing, or which needed referral to landlord A for intervention. It was unsatisfactory that it did not do so.
At stage one the landlord committed to reviewing the resident’s photographs of mould. The Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that it did so. This is unsatisfactory, including as it was an action it committing to taking to resolve the complaint. The Ombudsman is therefore not satisfied that the landlord assured itself that there was no repair issue for which it was responsible for addressing, and therefore it was meeting its repair obligations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety

The fire subject of the complaint occurred in May 2020. Following the fire landlord A produced an incident report. The report set out that the fire brigade attended and extinguished the external fire quickly “which was discarded house furniture ignited by an unknown person”. The report also detailed that in response to the fire it was looking at ways in which it could “prevent any future reoccurrence of events”. The Ombudsman notes that the report was shared with the residents, by landlord A, at the time which it was produced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not take any direct action in respect of the fire as landlord A had demonstrated a transparent and proactive response. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord shared the incident report with the resident again as part of its stage one response. This was appropriate.
The most recent fire risk assessment, prior to the resident’s complaint, is dated May 2019. The Ombudsman notes that the assessment did not identify any concerns in relation to the building’s cladding and confirmed that the building operated a stay put policy in case of a fire. Based on the information available to the landlord it was reasonable for it to advise the resident, within its stage one and stage two responses, that it was not aware of any issues in relation to the building’s cladding and the stay put policy had been approved as the appropriate response to a fire within the building, as this was the information available to it which had been prepared by an appropriately qualified expert.
The Ombudsman can see that in November 2020 landlord A wrote to all residents within the building confirming that “an investigation to the external wall system” on the building had “identified that the existing material may not meet the current guidance and recommendations from the Government” and therefore it would be undertaking some remediation works in the future. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to consider this new information and seek to provide a comprehensive update on the cladding as part of its final response in December 2020, in order to provide reassurances on the safety of the building and how landlord A was to mitigate any risks while the works were outstanding. The Ombudsman appreciates that it will have been distressing for the resident to learn that the building’s composition required addressing to make it fully compliant with the Government’s guidance on fire safety.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal areas

In determining this aspect of the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal areas. The Ombudsman considers that this is a proportionate approach noting the variety of issues raised by the resident which include ASB (drug use and homelessness), caretaking, pest control, fly tipping and parking.
As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building it is not responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the communal areas. This is the responsibility of landlord A. However, and as set out above, as the resident’s contract for the property is with the landlord and not landlord A, the Ombudsman would expect to see pro-active engagement by the landlord with landlord A to pursue the resident’s concerns and to seek resolutions and outcomes.
While the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns in relation to the communal areas and provide some feedback on the issues, overall the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the concerns which the resident raised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s responses did not demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the resident’s concerns were addressed within a reasonable timeframe and resolutions would be provided where necessary. Rather the landlord’s responses suggested, that while it had raised the issues with landlord A, there was little else it could do. For example the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord provided complete responses to the resident’s concerns in relation to ASB, fly tipping and parking.
In responding to the resident’s complaint about the communal areas the landlord suggested that the resident may wish to contact landlord A directly. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this proposal was inappropriate as the resident had no formal relationship with landlord A. Where the landlord was not satisfied with the level of engagement by landlord A it should have sought to explore other avenues to secure a response or action. There is no evidence that the landlord did so when the complaint was live.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation

Following a review of the available evidence the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation was reasonable as it explored multiple options for and on behalf of the resident. This included:
1. Placing the resident on its internal list for a housing transfer.
2. Offering to support the resident’s application for alternative accommodation with the local authority.
3. Exploring reciprocal transfers with secondary local authorities.
4. Asking landlord A to consider the resident for a move to one of its own properties.
5. Providing the resident with information on the Mayor’s Housing Moves Scheme.
The Ombudsman notes that until a suitable accommodation becomes available, to which the resident was entitled to, there was little else the landlord could do to support the resident’s request to move from the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operated a three-stage complaint procedure at the time which the resident made her complaint. The procedure set out that the landlord would seek to provide a response to the complaint at each stage of the process within 15 working days.
The evidence shows that the landlord did respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within 15 working days, however it did not provide its stage two or final response within the prescribed timeframe. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint procedure exists in order to ensure a complainant’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and that this time frame assures the complainant that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord acknowledged or apologised for the delays in its responses. This is unsatisfactory, as a landlord should take responsibility for its errors to acknowledge the impact on its resident.
The Ombudsman is also not satisfied with the landlord’s ownership of the complaint following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two. Despite the landlord acknowledging the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on the same day it was made, the landlord later said on 19 August 2020 that her complaint was out of time and therefore it was not eligible for consideration at stage two. On notification from the resident that the landlord had previously accepted her complaint for consideration at stage two, it was appropriate that the landlord progressed the complaint.
As part of its stage three, final response, the landlord made a number of commitments to help resolve the complaint. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it proactively sought to carry out the actions it identified, or within a timely manner. This is unsatisfactory and demonstrates a continued lack of ownership of the resident’s concerns and to put things right. The Ombudsman considers that it was good practice, however, that the landlord invited a representative of landlord A to the panel meeting to consider the resident’s complaint at stage three, in order that all responsible parties were present to achieve a resolution to the complaint.
Finally, in responding to the complaint the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord recognised the cumulative impact of the various issues on the resident which she had reported. The landlord should have identified that the series of issues reported by the resident in respect of her tenancy, when considered in combination, will have had a significant impact on the occupation of her property. This will have included distress, inconvenience and uncertainty. The landlord failed to identify the combined effects of the individual issues raised by the resident in responding to the complaint. This is unsatisfactory and demonstrates that the landlord did not fully consider the resident and her circumstances when investigating and responding to the complaint and that it was actively seeking to resolve the concerns which she had raised.

Assessment and findings – landlord A

Landlord A’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property

As set out in paragraph 46, landlord A, as the freeholder of the building is responsible for the maintenance of the communal heating system. Landlord A was therefore responsible for investigating and addressing problems with the communal boiler reported to it by either its own residents or the landlord.
In order to investigate landlord A’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property the Ombudsman requested that landlord A provide evidence demonstrating its response to extreme temperatures in the building from 2018 – the date the landlord first raised the issue with it.
As noted in paragraph 48 the evidence shows that the landlord first reported extreme temperatures to landlord A in August 2018. Landlord A has not provided evidence to this Service that it responded to the landlord at that time. This is unsatisfactory and was a missed opportunity by landlord A to take steps to investigate the issue at an earlier time.
In response to the Ombudsman’s information request landlord A confirmed:
1. To address the overheating challenges a site audit was carried out by a specialist contractor in November 2019, with recommendations being made.
2. Its heating contractor was “engaged in March 2021” to review the recommendations following the audit in November 2019. Landlord A acknowledged that there had been “a significant delay between the report being completed and [its] heating contractor” being engaged”. Landlord A suggested that this was due to “Covid-19 and winter pressures”.
3. Since March 2021 it had:
  1. Set up a remote connection to the building to monitor the communal boiler’s performance and allow for remote access to make any “set point adjustments”.
  2. Introduced weather compensation to the communal boiler so that in warmer weather it would run at a lower temperature. Landlord A confirmed that these works were concluded in September 2021.
  3. Repaired and replaced the insulation in the communal boiler plantroom and rises to reduce heat loss from the pipework. Landlord A confirmed that these works were concluded in October 2021.
Although it is appropriate that landlord A has taken steps to investigate and address the extreme temperatures in the building, the time taken to do so is unsatisfactory. As acknowledged itself, landlord A failed to act upon the recommendations following the findings of the specialist contractor within a reasonable period of time – a period of more than 18 months. While the Ombudsman notes landlord A’s suggested reasons for the delay, Covid-19 and winter pressures, the Ombudsman does not fully accept that either Covid-19 or winter pressures would have prevented landlord A from acting on the recommendations at an earlier point in time. Landlord A’s failure to progress the recommendations promptly will have resulted in an adverse impact on the building’s occupants, including the resident.
Landlord A did not acknowledge that its response to address extreme temperatures in the building had been unsatisfactory within its complaint response to the resident.

Landlord A’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety

Advice Note 14 was issued by the Government in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
The Government’s guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act”.
In order to investigate landlord A’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety the Ombudsman requested that landlord A provide evidence demonstrating its response to Government guidance on cladding and fire safety and the steps it has taken/ is taking to become compliant with it in respect of the building.
In response to the Ombudsman’s information request landlord A confirmed:
1. Following the Government’s Advice Note dated January 2020 the building had been subject to three investigations to explore the cladding – 14 September 2020, 23 October 2020 and 9 February 2021.
2. The findings following the inspection on 9 February 2021 highlighted:
  1. “The insulation is not of limited combustibility or better”.
  2. “The vertical cavity barriers are not intended to be used in this type of wall construction”.
  3. “There are no cavity barriers around openings”.
  4. The overall risk presented was “moderate”.
3. It was in the process of determining next steps to resolve the highlighted risks with any remediation work being programmed for 2022/23 due to the building’s moderate risk rating and considering that other buildings it owned had a higher risk rating.
Based on the information above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that landlord A was taking steps to comply with the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding as it has demonstrated that it was taking steps to act upon the recommendations following the inspections it undertook. While the Ombudsman notes that the first intrusive inspection took place 21 months after Advice Note 14 was issued the Ombudsman also notes that this document was guidance and therefore there was some discretion for a landlord as to how and when it choose to comply with it. Further the Ombudsman recognises that following issuing of Advice Note 14 and the Advice Note dated January 2020 there was a shortage of experts within the industry to complete the inspections.
While the Ombudsman is satisfied that landlord A was taking reasonable steps to comply with the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding, the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that landlord A communicated with the landlord regarding its response to the guidance or the inspections which it was undertaking. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been appropriate for landlord A to have kept the landlord informed of its response to the Government’s guidance. This is because the landlord owned properties within the building and in order for it to be able to provide appropriate and up-to-date information to its tenants. The first correspondence the Ombudsman has identified in relation to the Government’s guidance is landlord A’s letter to the resident dated November 2020.
In responding to the resident’s concerns relating to fire safety landlord A advised that it was currently determining next steps following the intrusive inspections, in addition to confirming that the stay put policy was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion landlord A’s response was unsatisfactory as it provided little detail or clarification regarding the situation, risks or remedial actions required. This was a missed opportunity by landlord A to allay the resident’s concerns and to provide reassurances that it was taking a proactive approach to addressing the issues which had been highlighted following the intrusive inspections.

Landlord A’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation

In response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation landlord A advised that it was not able to meet the resident’s request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion landlord A’s position was reasonable as it explained that:
1. It was under no obligation to offer the resident alternative accommodation as she was not one of its tenants and therefore would not have been eligible for an internal transfer.
2. The local authority had 100% nomination rights in respect of the properties which it owned within the resident’s desired area.
In responding to a complaint, a landlord should provide adequate reason and explanation to support its decision which landlord A did here.

Landlord A’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman is not satisfied that landlord A’s management of the complaint was satisfactory. The evidence shows that landlord A did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner, specifically as it delayed in providing its stage two response. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a resident’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and that this timeframe assures the resident that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay.
Further the Ombudsman cannot see that landlord A responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s windows. This is unsatisfactory and it denied the resident a comprehensive response to her complaint. Landlord A’s failure to respond to this aspect of the complaint also limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate this matter. Without knowledge of the landlord’s decisions the Ombudsman is unable to assess the quality of its decision making based upon the known circumstances at the time, and therefore whether it was meeting its obligations in relation to the property’s windows.
At stage one landlord A offered the resident £50 compensation “in recognition of the issues which the resident had experienced”. Landlord A did not provide further clarification on its offer. In the Ombudsman’s opinion landlord A’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the service failures identified, to fully recognise the impact of its failings on the resident and the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced as a result.

Determination (decision) – the landlord

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the property’s windows.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns of a sewage smell and mould within the property.
4. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety.
5. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal areas.
6. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
7. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision) – landlord A

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by landlord A in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the temperature within the property.
2. Service failure by landlord A in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety.
3. No maladministration by landlord A in respect of its response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
4. Service failure by landlord A in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons – the landlord