London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202113505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113505

Landlord Details – London and Quadrant (L&Q)

Date 30.03.2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. decision making around a storage cupboard n a communal area.
   2. level of communication.
   3. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The property is a one bedroom, second floor flat in a converted house. The resident started the assured tenancy in 1990. The current landlord took over managing the property in 2008 following a merger.
3. The resident has said they have had sole use and access to a store cupboard since moving into the property. The cupboard is on the ground floor in a communal area, marked Store C on the door. The electricity to this cupboard is connected and runs from the resident’s home supply.
4. A joint complaint was made by the residents of the two flats on the first and second floor of this property. The Ombudsman requested that these be dealt with individually as the implications could be different for each resident. The stage two response was issued to each resident separately.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement

5. The tenancy agreement shows that the landlord is responsible for keeping the building’s communal areas fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises. It is also obliged to consult tenants before making changes in matters of housing management or maintenance which are likely to have a substantial effect.

Estate Management Policy and Procedure:

6. The landlord’s estate management policy commits to enforce a zero tolerance to goods left in communal areas, keeping them free from health and safety and fire hazards or obstructions. It refers to undertaking risk assessments and using tort notices to remove, sell or dispose of items that pose a high risk or major hazard to the health and safety of residents.

Fire Safety Policy

7. The landlord’s fire safety policy states that Fire Risk Assessments (FRA) should be completed four yearly on medium/low risk properties between three – four stories. Managers are responsible for ensuring that procedures are followed and that their teams are provided with the required resources and training to deliver such a service.
8. The FRAs used by the landlord, covers all parts of the communal areas including but not exclusively, access into all cupboards located off the escape route, and states that service cupboards are to be kept clear.

Procedures for removal of goods in communal areas

9. This procedure defines communal areas including hallways/corridors, (under)stairs and landings, fire escape routes, dry riser inlet and meter cupboards, landlord’s stores, refuse chutes, tank rooms, and hopper rooms.
10. The procedure reinforces the zero-tolerance policy for storage in communal areas and allows for when the goods are not an immediate risk, for the landlord to serve a tort and permitting five working days for removal.
11. If the goods are not removed within five working days, the landlord can arrange for them to be removed and depending on the value, will dispose of them or store them for a limited time.

Complaints procedure

12. The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond withing 20 working days.

Summary of events

13. On 17 October 2020 an FRA was completed at the property by the landlord’s contractor. It provided photographs and comments on its findings.
14. The FRA report described the property as a converted property of three flats. These are arranged with flat A occupying the ground floor and basement, flat B on the first floor and flat C on the second floor, accessed from the first floor landing.
15. The report mentions three store cupboards which open on to the communal stairwell, two on the ground floor (under stairs cupboard and store C) and one on the first floor (store B). On the ground floor there is also an electrical cupboard. Paint and carpet were found stored here during the inspection. There was no access to store B or store C at this time.
16. Following the inspection and in line with its policy, on 30 December 2020 the landlord served a five day tort notice (a legal document alerting the owner that items left on private land will be removed) on both store B and store C. The residents were advised that any items left after five working days would be removed and stored, for which the resident would be charged. 
17. On 2 February 2021 the joint complainant contacted their local MP for support, as it was noted that the residents were feeling harassed and bullied by the landlord into removing their belongings. A further tort was served on 24 February 2021 stating the items had to be moved by 3 March 2021.
18. In a later submission to the Ombudsman, the resident said that they had discussed the situation with the landlord on 3 February 2021. They advised that the landlord apologised for the confusion and error and that they had been given contradictory information. The resident was advised that both store B and store C were not considered as communal store cupboards and therefore they did not have to be cleared. This indicates the resident was given contradictory information and advice during these discussions and is detailed in internal emails from the landlord. The resident advised that this led to a complete breakdown in their relationship with the landlord.

19. The landlord emailed the resident and their MP on 15 and 17 February 2021 respectively. It confirmed:
    1. there was to be no re-classification of the store cupboards
    2. items would not need to be removed
    3. it would speak to the residents and advise what it would allow to be stored in the cupboard to comply with the fire regulations.
20. On 24 February 2021, a final notice was served advising the resident that all items needed to be removed from the store cupboard by 3 March 2021.
21. The landlord’s records show its local manager attended the property on 3 March 2021. The residents were advised that the items had to be removed from the store cupboards to comply with the fire safety regulations.  Store B and Store C were considered to be communal cupboards as they were not in the ‘demise’ of the flat and not listed as part of the premises on the tenancy agreement.
22. On 10 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the MP advising that the stores were considered as communal and would therefore look for alternative solutions for storage areas. As a gesture of good will the landlord offered to clear any unwanted items free of charge on 18 March 2021.
23. The resident removed all the items from the store cupboard by 18 March 2021. The landlord agreed that any items no longer required could be left in the front garden on this date and would be removed free of charge and disposed of. The store cupboards are no longer used by the residents.
24. A joint stage one complaint was raised on 31 March 2021 with the resident of the flat below who had been using the store cupboard on the first floor. The complaints raised were that:
    1. They were not happy with the repossession of the store cupboard.
    2. They felt that the FRA had been misinterpreted.
    3. The landlord’s staff had been harassing and intimidating in their demands to clear the store cupboard.
25. An informal decision letter was sent on 15 April 2021 to the other resident. The stage one complaint was not upheld as it explained that the stores could not be used in the communal areas due to health, safety and fire risks as is stated in the landlords policies. There was no mention as to how the complaint was dealt with by staff.
26. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 4 May 2021, which was acknowledged the next day. The escalation was requested for the following reasons:
    1. No explanation for change in rationale for store cupboards being reclassified as communal
    2. The lack of consideration of tenants’ health and well being
    3. Original intent of the store cupboards – both residents had sole use of the store cupboards from the start of the tenancy.
27. A response to the stage two complaint was chased on 24 May 2021 and 23 July 2021. The stage two response was issued on 27 August 2021 but only to the other resident.
28. Although this was initially a joint complaint, the Ombudsman asked that the complaint be assessed separately as the implications could be different for each resident. The Ombudsman requested that a stage two decision letter be sent to each resident in their own right.  A stage two decision letter was sent to the resident on 15th December 2021. This was 207 days after the request to escalate the complaint.
29. The decision was not upheld. The stage two complaint did apologise with regards to the residents’ claims of feeling harassed and bullied. The landlord re-iterated that it was following its zero tolerance policy on storage in communal areas and this was to be enforced throughout its stock management.

Assessment and findings

Decision making around a storage room in a communal area

30. The resident has said that they had sole use of the store cupboard from the outset of the tenancy and only they had keys to the store cupboard. However, the tenancy does not reference the use of an external store cupboard.  No other documentation from either the resident or the landlord has been provided to clarify this.
31. Discretion for the decision on whether to allow the storage of personal belongings in communal areas lies with the landlord the strict zero tolerance policy put in place by the landlord is to comply with statutory landlord obligations (Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005) to prevent loss of life and injury in the event of an emergency (eg fire) and ensure that residents are aware of their responsibilities and have a clear and fast escape route.
32. The landlord’s policy on fire safety says that no resident should store or leave, on a temporary or permanent basis, personal belongings or rubbish within communal areas at any time. No exceptions apply to ensure that common areas and service cupboards are effectively kept clear. Residents and their visitors must not increase the risk of fire, nor block the means of access and escape. In this case it is not disputed that the store cupboard does open out onto a communal hallway which is an escape route.
33. Whilst the high risk items such as the paint and carpet were removed from the electrical cupboard immediately, the five day tort was served as the items being kept in Store C were considered lower risk. An additional three weeks was allowed from the final warning letter to the removal of the unwanted items free of charge. This was a reasonable time given the circumstances.
34. It is evident and understandable that the resident was frustrated and inconvenienced by losing the use of the store cupboard. However the landlord’s decision to ask them to clear it was one it was entitled to make and in accordance with its fire safety policy.

Level of communication

35. The landlord took reasonable steps to consult with the resident during the whole period having written and attended the property and explained its obligations in relation to the use of communal spaces. The communal areas are owned and managed by the landlord. They are responsible for reducing fire risks and ensuring easily accessible escape routes for the safety of all the residents. This allows the landlord to meet its legal obligations under the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005 and in preparation for The Fire Safety Regulations 2022.
36. Whilst the previous FRA was completed in 2016, a year before the Grenfell tragedy, there have been no records provided nor explanation as to why these store cupboards were not featured as communal store cupboards previously. This uncertainty continues throughout the three month period where the landlord consulted with the residents and gave contradictory information as to whether the store cupboards are for sole use or communal and if they need to be cleared or not.
37. The stage one and stage two complaint decision letters explain to the resident that the landlord was following its zero tolerance safety policies when asking for the store cupboards to be emptied. Whilst this is clear, whether or not the store cupboards were for sole use or deemed to be communal changed numerous times, as per below:
    1. 30 December 2020 a tort notice to remove the items from the communal store cupboard was served.
    2. 15 February 2021 it was agreed that the items could remain as the store cupboards were not being reclassified as communal.
    3. 3 March 2021 a tort notice was served with instructions to remove all items from the communal store cupboard.
38. Formal written notifications explaining this change in decision may have helped the resident feel less confused, frustrated and harassed and could have helped stabilise the relationship between the landlord and resident.
39. The landlord is expected to keep clear and robust records, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. There are no notes as to why the decision to change the use of the store cupboards from sole use to communal was made, nor by whom. The issue does not appear to have been picked up in previous FRA inspections and according to the resident they have had sole use since they moved in. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail in such matters.
40. The landlord’s policies state that all staff should be fully trained in following their policies and procedures and this is particularly necessary when such important health and safety decisions are being made.  Staff need to be confident in their decision making and be supported when a decision is made.
41. The landlord offered to look for alternative options for storage to help the resident when it was initially recorded that the store cupboards were communal and should not be used. However, due to the contradictory information given to the resident, the landlord then advised that this was no longer required as the store cupboard did not need to be cleared. Following the change in decision at a later date, that the store cupboards had to be cleared, there was no further mention of providing additional storage. Having communicated with the resident recently, this has not been provided and no further communication from the landlord has been relayed.
42. The landlord neglected to answer questions raised by the resident within the complaint process. Contradictory information and instruction was given to the residents without reason or justification. This resulted in the resident feeling unnecessarily frustrated, bullied and intimidated. This led to a complete breakdown in the relationship with the landlord as the resident felt that their concerns had not been listened to.

Complaint handling

43. The stage one complaint was dealt with in 15 working days and the stage two complaint in 207 working days.  They both failed to comply with the landlord’s complaint handling procedure, which suggests 10 days and 20 days respectively.  There is no evidence to suggest that a time extension was requested for either decision.
44. From the internal notes provided by the landlord there were clear training issues that lead to the delay in providing relevant information to the resident and in the stage two decision being made.  The property manager did not read the FRA report correctly nor liaise with the fire safety officer writing the report to clarify what action was required.  They were also unfamiliar with the complaints process and did not know how to record the escalation process to stage two. This caused additional stress to the resident’s wellbeing and living conditions due to the conflicting information, uncertainty and delays.
45. Overall, the lack of clarity for following its own procedures and the delays incurred give raise to a finding of maladministration for its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision making around a storage room in a communal area.
47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its level of communication.
48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

49. Discretion for the decision on whether to allow the storage of personal belongings in communal areas lies with the landlord. In this case it clearly explained the reasons for its decision, which were supported by its policies and the lease agreement.
50. The landlord failed to answer several specific questions raised by the resident in both the initial complaint and escalation request. They also gave contradictory information throughout the enquiry and did not elaborate on a reason for these changes in decision. This resulted in the resident feeling unnecessarily frustrated, bullied and intimidated and that their concerns had not been listened to.  It also led to a complete breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and resident.
51. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints policy at stage one and two.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total for £300 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
53. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlords level of communication.
54. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlords complaint handling.
55. The landlord to make contact with the resident to discuss the outstanding actions from the FRA report dated 17 October 2020 and provide an update for completion within four weeks.
56. The landlord to disconnect the electricity supply from the store cupboard to the residents’ personal supply and link the store cupboard electricity supply to the communal lighting supply within eight weeks.

Recommendations

57. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that the landlord keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of the permission that was granted to the resident to store personal belongings in the communal storage cupboard. It is therefore, recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping process to ensure there is a clear audit trail.
58. The landlord to review its staff training, particularly in fire safety and keeping records to improve its practices in relation to communication with residents and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning, if this has not been done recently.
59. The landlord to share this report with its relevant staff with a view to improving its service going forwards.
60. The landlord shall contact this Service within eight weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.