London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204339

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about a fire door.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a one bedroom, ground floor flat. She has lived there since 2015. She has physical disabilities affecting her mobility and uses a walking stick. She advised the landlord that she had experienced a property fire before. The landlord’s records note that the resident has complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that one of her responsibilities under the terms of the tenancy is not to “harass or threaten to harass or use or threaten violence towards the landlord’s staff.”
4. The Fire Safety Act 2021 clarified that flat entrance doors must be considered in the fire risk assessment that a landlord undertakes for any building for which it is responsible under this legislation. The landlord’s fire safety policy complies with this and states that as part of its fire risk assessment, all fire doors in the common parts will be inspected on both sides for suitability.
5. The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 state that there is no requirement to replace a fire door simply because it does not meet the current standard under Building Regulations if the door remains in full working order from a fire safety point of view.
6. The Fire Safety Report for the building from July 2021 states that the skylight can be manually operated at the top of the stairs for smoke control, but there is no automatic venting. It noted as actions to be completed that various combustible and non-combustible items were stored in the communal area the top floor gas meter cupboard contained personal items and rubbish. These jobs were allocated to “Thames Fire” as a low priority.
7. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If longer is required, the landlord will notify the resident.

Summary of events

8. On 6 May 2022 the resident reported that the wall near the fire door, which was located at the top of the resident’s stairs and led onto a communal corridor, was cracked and she did not believe it was strong enough to take the weight of the door. The Fire Safety Manager visited the property on 11 May 2022 to check the fire door and confirmed there were no issues.
9. The following day (12 May 2022) the resident submitted a complaint and said as follows:
   1. There were “large voids” in the fire door which the landlord had advised were part of its construction. She felt it had not been checked properly and felt it was unsafe for her as a disabled resident.
   2. The wall near the door was cracked.
   3. A skylight had been screwed shut contrary to the fire safety report.
10. The landlord’s fire safety manager assured the resident the same day via email that the voids were part of the design of the fire door.
11. On 27 May 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and noted that it had visited her at the property to discuss her concerns. It advised that the resident had not mentioned an issue with the skylight at the time and asked her to contact its repair team if it needed repairing. It reiterated that the voids were part of the design of the door which had been installed in 2018 and did not need replacing.
12. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 that same day and said as follows:
    1. She requested to see the legislation which stated that large voids were permitted in a fire door. She said it had been compromised and was not fit for purpose.
    2. The contractor had taken a picture of the void but had not shown her it. She stated that she had removed a lock from the door herself and had found two large voids.
    3. The landlord had not addressed the cracks in the wall or checked the skylight.
    4. Aerosols and white spirit had been left on the first floor and the gas cupboard was filled with junk.
    5. The resident referred to a member of the landlord’s staff as “incompetent” and said the landlord was “a danger to public health, safety and wellbeing.”
13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2022 about the tone of her correspondence. It advised that it would not accept any further correspondence from her where she was using insulting language. It advised that failure to comply would be a breach of her tenancy.
14. On 8 August 2022 the landlord asked a general contractor to assess the fire door. The contractor attended the same day and noted that no action was required and there were no health and safety concerns with the door.
15. The resident contacted The Housing Ombudsman and advised that the landlord had not responded to her at stage 2. This Service contacted the landlord in October 2022 and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 8 November 2022.
16. The landlord called the resident on 1 November 2022 to discuss the complaint. Following the call the landlord arranged for a fire risk assessment carpenter to visit the property the following day to re-inspect the fire door. This appointment took place on 2 November 2022 and it was confirmed that there were no health and safety risks and the door met the regulatory standards. The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 November 2022 and said that she was still concerned about the door.
17. On 7 November 2022 the landlord arranged for a vulnerability flag to be added to the resident’s records in line with her request that this be done.
18. On 8 November 2022 the landlord responded at stage 2 and reiterated the steps it had taken to assess the fire door and explained that it met health and safety requirements. The landlord also said as follows:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident “may have been extremely stressed and worried” for her safety but it assured her that its operatives were fully trained and qualified to identify any safety risks.
    2. With no issues having been identified with the door it was unable to arrange another assessment or door replacement.
    3. It had requested a vulnerability marker to be added to her records.
    4. It apologised that it had failed to escalate the complaint, for its lack of communication and failure to provide a satisfactory level of customer service. It offered £60 for its delay in complaint handling and a further £10 for its delay in escalating the complaint.
19. The resident responded the same day and reiterated her concerns. She also said that the operatives did not remove the locks so they would not have seen the safety concerns. They had also disregarded that the frame was only 1mm in certain areas. She felt that her life was at risk due to the fire door.
20. On 9 November 2022 the landlord updated the resident’s details on its system to record that she had physical disabilities and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.
21. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 15 November 2022.

Correspondence following the resident’s referral to the Housing Ombudsman

22. Between January and April 2023 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had apologised to her about saying she was breaching her tenancy. She had been “deeply upset” by the comment and was paying for private counselling for that and other issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

23. Within her stage 2 complaint and subsequent referral to this Service, the resident referred to aspects of complaint which she had not included in her original stage 1 complaint. Under the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles landlords should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues raised and try to put them right prior to the involvement of this Service. As the following aspects of complaint had not been considered by the landlord through its internal complaints procedure they do not form part of this investigation:
    1. Items being left on the floor and the gas cupboard being filled with items.
    2. That the landlord had not put a care plan in place for her after identifying her as vulnerable.
    3. The landlord advising the resident about the tone of her language towards its staff and advise that further use of such language could be a breach of her tenancy.

24. The landlord should make further contact with the resident to ensure that these are not outstanding issues which need resolving. A recommendation has been made for this below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire door

25. The landlord acted appropriately and within a timely manner following the resident’s reports about concerns with the fire door. Following a contractor attending to inspect the door on 6 May 2022, the fire safety manager contacted the resident and reassured her that the door was appropriate on 12 May 2022. Subsequently the landlord sent contractors on another two separate occasions to assess the door following the residents ongoing concerns. On each of these occasions the contractors came to the same conclusion, that the door met the required specification for a fire door and that it did not need adjustment or replacing. This was in line with fire safety regulations.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to relay on the expert opinion of its specialist contractors. Additionally, to try to resolve the resident’s concerns and for fairness it sought the opinion of more than one contractor. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
27. The evidence seen by this Service has referred to the resident removing the locks from the fire door on more than one occasion. There is no evidence however of what the landlord has done in response to this. The landlord needs to satisfy itself that the door remains fit for purpose as the resident tampering with the locks might have affected it. A recommendation for the landlord to check the door is still fit for purpose and to remind the resident not to tamper with the door has been made below.
28. The landlord appropriately relied on the advice of its contractors in explaining to  the resident that the door was appropriate and was deemed safe. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise her that it would not be replacing the door or taking any further action to inspect it.

Complaints handling

29. The landlord took 12 working days rather than the 10 working days outlined in its complaint procedure to respond at stage 1. It also did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within its stated timeframe and only did so following the involvement of this Service. This was not in accordance with its policy and was contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which states that landlord’s should respond to resident’s requests for complaints to be escalated. This was of particular concern given the resident’s vulnerability and the fact she was raising a fire safety issue. The landlord did not consider the impact on the resident of it not progressing her complaint in light of her vulnerabilities and the clear emotive response that issues surrounding fire safety evoke given her past experience. Although the landlord subsequently acknowledged the delay and apologised, its offer of £70 compensation was not commensurate with its failure to progress the complaint about a serious issue such as fire safety through its complaints process or the impact of this on the resident.
30. It is noted by this Service that the resident raised the issue of there being cracks in the wall near the fire door within her stage 1 complaint. Although the landlord addressed the safety of the door, it did not address the cracks within its responses at stage 1 or 2. In addition the landlord did not acknowledge that it had failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made to address this below.
31. The landlord further failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the skylight. Although it’s response in its stage one response directed the resident to contact the repairs team which was reasonable. In receiving the concern again during the resident’s escalation to stage two, there was an opportunity for the landlord to re-engage and provide support in escalating the matter to the repairs team. This was a minor failure by the landlord.
32. The landlord’s failures in its complaints handling amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of this on the vulnerable resident who was raising a serious matter about fire safety, compensation of £320 has been ordered. This comprises of the impact on the resident of the complaint handling failure and  for its failure to address the resident’s concerns regarding her skylight further. This is inclusive of the £70 previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the fire door.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

35. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for a fire safety manager to speak to the resident and for different contractors to assess the door on more than one occasion. It was appropriate that the landlord rely on the advice of the contractors that the door met the required specification and that it subsequently took no action to change the door.
36. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure. It failed to escalate her complaint at stage 2 and only did so following the involvement of this Service. It did not show consideration for the residents vulnerabilities or the serious nature of the concern she was raising. Its offer of £70 compensation was not commensurate with the nature of its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
    1. Pay the resident £320 compensation for the complaint handling failures as stated within the assessment. The £70 previously offered can be deducted if already paid.
    2. Assess the cracks reported in the wall near the fire door and respond to the resident’s concerns about them.
    3. Contact the resident and ensure any concerns regarding the skylight are reported to the repairs team.
    4. Send a written apology to the resident for the failures identified within this case.

Recommendations

38. It is recommended that the landlord inspect the fire door in light of the resident having removed the locks herself.
39. It is recommended that the landlord remind the resident not to tamper with the door or the locks.
40. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that the issues she raised about her care plan and the items on the floor and in the cupboard have been resolved. If they are still outstanding, the landlord should action them.