Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202000069)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000069

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

26 February 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 fire safety
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for fire safety and maintenance
3. Complaint handling

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose-built block (the building).
The resident’s husband makes the complaint on behalf of the resident. Throughout the assessment the husband’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s for ease of reference.

Summary of events

On 28 December 2018 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about:
1. Repairs and maintenance.
2. Lighting.
3. Transparency of service charge credits.
4. Health and safety measures in relation to fire safety. The resident said:
  1. The purpose of the communal alarm system (the system) was unclear as the landlord had not informed residents what it detected i.e. smoke, heat or gas. The resident also asked the landlord what the system sounded like when it was triggered and whether it could be heard from inside a property.
  2. They were unaware of what the fire safety contract involved. The resident stated that as they did not know what the contract involved they were unable to report any shortfalls in the service delivery. The resident stated that “full disclosure” of work undertaken was required by the contractor.
As the resident only referred their complaint about fire safety to the Ombudsman the resident’s other concerns will not be further referenced within this assessment.
On 2 January 2019 the landlord acknowledged the complaint confirming that a response would be provided by 16 January 2019.
On 16 January 2019 the landlord provided its stage one response. The landlord said that it would arrange for additional information to be provided to residents regarding the fire safety controls currently in place for the building. The landlord however noted that the fire safety contract covered the provision and maintenance of fire exit and policy signage, maintenance of emergency lighting and other fire alarms systems/ equipment and regular fire risk assessments and “associated work”.
On 17 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that they were dissatisfied that they had not yet received its response to their complaint. The resident stated that they therefore had “no choice” but to register another formal complaint with the landlord as it had failed to respond to their complaint within the deadline given.
On the same day the landlord responded setting out that the complaint response was issued “yesterday” however it omitted to email a copy to the resident. The landlord apologised and attached a copy of the response.
On 18 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that a new complaint would not be opened regarding its complaint handling. In response the resident stated that they “did not accept the delay and [their] complaint [stood]”.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding its complaint handling under its complaint procedure. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received its stage one response on 16 January 2019 as it had omitted to email a copy to them. The resident replied confirming that they did not accept the landlord’s apology as it failed to respond by the deadline that it had set. The resident stated that the landlord should not have given a deadline of 16 January 2019 if it could not be met.
On 21 January 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it was sorry to learn that they did not accept its apology, however it was unable to add anything further to this. The landlord advised that it was unable to provide reassurance that it would always meet its deadlines as sometimes things would go wrong. The landlord confirmed that it would however take the resident’s concerns forward as learning.
On 22 January 2019 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response dated 16 January 2019. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had “dodged” the issue of what the system sounded like when triggered.
2. The landlord should have provided information to residents regarding fire safety prior to their complaint.
3. The landlord had failed to explain what the fire safety contract involved. The resident said that they had the right to know as it was a service they were paying for. The resident asked the landlord to confirm how often the contractor was on site and what exactly they did. The resident explained that this information was required so that they could report any shortcomings by the contractor.
On 31 January 2019 the landlord provided an addendum to its stage one response. The landlord said it did not accept that it was avoiding the provision of a response about fire safety at the building. The landlord reiterated that it was putting together “key information” about fire safety arrangements, including what was covered by the service contracts. The landlord said that it was committed to providing this information by 15 February 2019, which would include consideration of a contractor attendance sheet on the notice board.
On 2 February 2019 the resident responded to the landlord. The resident stated information on “fire, health and safety” at the building should have been issued prior to their complaint to ensure transparency. The resident also said that it was “only right” that an attendance sheet was used to indicate what work had been completed under the fire safety contract.
On 25 February 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the following aspects of their complaint were outstanding:
1. An explanation detailing why information on fire safety controls had not been provided to residents prior to their complaint.
2. Details regarding the sound of the system when triggered, including if it could be heard from inside a property.
3. Details of the fire safety contract, including contractor attendance. The resident said that the landlord had not given consideration to an attendance sheet for the contract.
On 1 March 2019, following a chaser from the resident, the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord said it had not ignored the resident’s questions regarding the system or the fire safety contract. The landlord referred the resident to its complaint responses dated 16 and 31 January 2019. The landlord said that it would however escalate the resident’s concerns to stage two of its complaint procedure.
On 5 March 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding their complaint. The resident noted that they had just received the service charge estimate for 2019/2020 and wished to query the following charges:
1. Fire maintenance
2. Health and Safety
3. Fire Risk Assessment
On 6 March 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that their complaint would be considered at stage two of its complaint procedure and a response would be provided by 15 March 2019.
On 18 March 2019 the landlord wrote to confirm that its stage two response would be delayed. The landlord apologised for the delay confirming that it would issue its response once it had meet with the resident to discuss their concerns.
On 18 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following a meeting with them earlier that day. The landlord confirmed that its stage two response would focus on the following areas:
1. The precise work carried out by the contractor for fire safety.
2. Confirmation of the fire safety requirements at the building.
3. An explanation of the service charge costs for fire maintenance.
On 25 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had “got to the bottom of the fire safety risk assessment issues”. In summary the landlord said:
1. The work carried out by the contractor for fire safety included:
  1. Quarterly emergency light testing.
  2. Annual smoke detectors.
  3. Checking fire safety door signage
  4. Any repair work required to ensure the emergency light was working correctly.
2. Confirmation of the fire safety requirements at the building:
  1. Unless directly affected by a fire or requested to evacuate by the fire service the building had a stay put policy. The landlord explained that as the building had a stay put policy the communal alarm system would “not necessarily be heard in flats”.
  1. There was no requirement for fire action notices to be installed on each floor.
  2. It was happy to arrange a meeting with the resident to “explain the technicalities of the requirements” of the fire risk assessment.
3. An explanation of the service charge costs for fire maintenance:
  1. The 2019/2020 estimated cost for fire maintenance had increased “almost solely” due to the cost of the fire risk assessment.
  2. The fire maintenance cost and health and safety cost had “broadly stayed the same” from the previous year. The landlord confirmed that it was the cost of the fire risk assessment that had meant an increase in the resident’s estimated service charge.
  3. The estimated fire risk assessment cost for the building due that year was £3770.88 which consisted of £1370.88 for the assessment plus £2400 contingency for potential works. The landlord confirmed that the cost to the resident would be £66.16. The landlord noted that this was “a sizeable” increase from the previous year however it was only an estimated cost which “may not materialise”.

The landlord concluded by confirming that it hoped it had clarified the fire safety requirements for the resident.
On 28 April 2019 the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The work carried out by the contractor for fire safety:
  1. They were “surprised” that residents did not need to know when the contractor undertook works. The resident stated that it should be a requirement that the contractor complete an attendance sheet as the cleaner and gardener were required to do.
  2. The landlord “must agree” that residents should know what the system sounded like when triggered.
  3. They had recently reported a fault to a fire door and asked if this should have been checked at the same time as signage.
  4. There was unnecessary signage around the building.
1. Confirmation of the fire safety requirements at the building:
  1. If the building had a stay put policy why had the landlord installed the system.
  2. They would like to accept the landlord’s offer to discuss the fire risk assessment.
  3. It was unclear why a new fire risk assessment was required if there was already one in place.
1. An explanation of the service charge costs for fire maintenance:
  1. They did not think that the “inflated” costs for the new fire risk assessment were necessary especially as the building was low rise with no cladding.
  2. They thought it was unnecessary that the service charge for fire maintenance included a contingency fund. The resident suggested that an overpayment be invoiced to residents instead if necessary.
The resident concluded by confirming that they were still waiting for the information sheet on fire safety within the building to be issued.
On 24 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its stage two complaint response would be delayed. Within its correspondence the landlord explained that the delay was due to sourcing information to the questions which the resident had asked during the recent meeting to discuss the building’s fire risk assessment. The landlord said that its stage two response would be provided by 7 June 2019.
On 27 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord following the meeting to discuss the building’s fire risk assessment. Within their correspondence the resident commented on the fire risk assessment, raising concerns with its accuracy. The resident stated that in their opinion the fire risk assessment was “not worth the paper it [was] written on”, specifically as it did not consider individual properties and focused on the communal areas.
On 6 June 2019 the landlord advised the resident that its stage two response would be delayed. The Ombudsman understands that on 7 June 2019 the landlord and resident had a conversation about the complaint.
On 21 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to their correspondence dated 28 April 2019. In summary the landlord said:
1. The fire servicing contract did not have a requirement for the contractor to write to residents or to log anywhere that they have been on site when servicing any communal services. The landlord said it could provide evidence they had attended yet it was not something it would do as “the norm”. The landlord explained that if it did ask the contractor to complete an attendance sheet it would be an additional cost to the contract that would be passed to residents.
2. The building has a stay put policy.
3. The building did not have a fire alarm panel so “there [was] no panel to test”. The landlord confirmed that the smoke detectors and the emergency lighting were tested however it was not part of the contract to inform residents when the tests took place.
4. Works to update fire signage had been instructed and would be carried out by the end of the financial year.
5. It had considered the resident’s suggestion that a contingency fund should not be included in the service charge for fire maintenance, confirming that this may be possible. The landlord requested to speak with the resident to discuss further.
6. A letter regarding fire safety and confirmation of the stay put policy would be issued to all residents by 28 June 2019.

On 24 June 2019 the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. While the contractor could provide evidence that they attended the building there was no evidence of the work undertaken.
2. It was not clear why the landlord had installed the system if the building had a stay put policy. The resident asked why residents were required to contribute to the system’s upkeep.
3. The cost of any signage removed which was deemed unnecessary should be refunded to residents and the cost of any additional signage required should be met the landlord.
4. Residents should have the option of being invoiced for any additional service charge costs rather than contributing to a contingency fund.
5. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had delayed in issuing information on fire safety to residents.
On 30 July 2019 the landlord provided its stage two response. In summary the landlord said:
1. As part of the review it met with the resident to discuss the fire risk assessment in detail.
2. It was satisfied that its fire safety strategy for the building was appropriate and in line with the fire risk assessment.
3. It was unable to agree the resident’s request for the fire contractor to complete an attendance sheet detailing work undertaken as it would result in additional costs to residents.
4. It had provided the resident with a breakdown of the service charge “focusing on fire safety”. The landlord explained that the cost included a £480 contingency sum. The landlord confirmed that it proposed to remove the charge from the resident’s service charge for the year. The landlord stated that if any additional costs were incurred in relation to fire safety, above the estimated charge, the resident would be involved.
5. It would be providing an update to all residents on the building’s fire safety procedure by the end of August 2019. The landlord confirmed that this was “not a formal requirement” however as it had made a commitment to provide the information it would do so.
On 30 July 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to notify it of their intention to escalate the complaint to a panel hearing. In summary the resident said:
1. They did not accept the landlord’s position regarding fire safety at the building.
2. They “provisionally accepted” the landlord’s position on service charges subject to a revised service charge estimate.
3. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had not explained why it had delayed in providing information to residents regarding the building’s fire safety procedure prior to their complaint.
On 28 August 2019 the landlord wrote to all residents to provide an “update about fire safety measures currently in place at [the building]”. In summary the landlord said:
1. It took the safety of its residents seriously. The landlord explained that it did so by ensuring that it carried out periodic fire risk assessments in line with the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
2. The purpose of the fire risk assessment was to identify hazards, quantify risk associated with existing control measures and to consider any additional measures that may be required to mitigate the residual risk. The landlord confirmed that the last assessment was in May 2018.
3. Signs across the internal areas of the building detailed “emergency action notices”, details about the stay put policy, exit routes and no smoking. The landlord confirmed that the signs provided essential information.
4. The building had a stay put policy and residents should stay put unless they were directly affected by a fire or requested to evacuate by the fire service.
5. The building had emergency escape lighting and “grade D smoke detection equipment”. The landlord explained that while communal smoke detectors were not generally considered to be a requirement in blocks such as the building it had been installed as “an additional precaution” and would sound when triggered.
6. It had maintenance contracts in place for these services which included periodic tests during the year.
7. Residents should not use communal areas to store personal items.
8. Residents should inform it regarding issues relating to signage, the emergency lighting or the system.
9. It had enclosed a revised estimated service charge breakdown. The landlord explained that it had taken the decision to lower the fire risk assessment costs.
On 30 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had now issued a letter to residents setting out the fire safety procedure for the building.
2. The policy for the building was stay put. The landlord noted that if a visitor or resident was in a communal area when fire was detected they should leave the building by the nearest exit.
3. It believed that it had now provided a comprehensive response to the resident’s concerns in relation to fire safety.
The landlord concluded by confirming that if the resident was not happy with its response they could escalate the complaint.
On 12 September 2019 the resident formally requested to escalate his complaint to stage three. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord was unwilling to arrange for the fire safety contractor to complete an attendance sheet documenting the work they had undertaken and when.
2. Following a review of the fire risk assessment it was unclear why the landlord had installed the system as it stated that a communal fire alarm was not generally considered to be a requirement in a purpose built residential block. The resident suggested that any costs associated with the communal fire alarm should not be passed on to residents.
3. Residents did not know what the communal alarm system sounded like if it was triggered.
4. The notice demonstrating the building’s fire policy was poorly affixed to the walls on levels zero and one. The resident noted that notices were not present on other floors.
5. It was not clear why the landlord was commissioning another fire risk assessment “so soon after one last year”.
6. The stay put policy for the building was “contradictory and impractical” and did not take account of scenarios when a person was in a communal area.
7. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord’s letter dated 28 August 20219, providing information on the building’s fire safety procedure, was not signed. The resident added that the letter contained unhelpful and misleading information including in relation to the stay put policy and signage.
The resident concluded by confirming that they required the landlord to undertake several actions to remedy the complaint including:
1. Admission that it had installed the communal alarm system unnecessarily and it would take responsibility for its maintenance costs.
2. The fire contractor to complete an attendance log.
3. The landlord to review signage within the building.
4. The landlord to review the fire policy for the building.
5. That a named person take responsibility for the landlord’s letter dated 28 August 2019.
6. Residents were banned for having barbecues due to the risk of fire.
On 2 October 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and confirmed that it would take steps to arrange a panel hearing.
On 21 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the panel hearing had been scheduled for 9 December 2019. The resident responded to acknowledge the date and to confirm that they would attend.
On 14 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that new fire notices had been installed in the building. The resident stated that if residents were to be charged for the signs, they would like this to be included in their complaint.
On 22 November 2019 the landlord wrote a general letter to all residents. In relation to fire safety the landlord said that during a recent inspection it had identified personal items stored in the communal areas. The landlord stated that this was prohibited, and items should be removed. In response to the letter the resident raised concerns that some of their items had been disposed of and therefore requested that this be added to their complaint.
On 28 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident noted that “fire signage” and items stored in the communal areas had been “put right” and wondered if this was as a result of his complaint or “coincidence”. The resident said that the complaint panel should address this as part of the complaint hearing.
During December 2019 the resident raised concerns regarding the panel hearing. This included panel composition, accuracy of the complaint pack and length of the hearing. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns including by correcting an error in the complaint chronology and explaining that the panel composition was in accordance with its complaint policy. As a result of the dialogue, and in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the complaint pack the landlord postponed the panel hearing. In response to the postponement the resident noted their objections to the landlord.
On 20 February 2020 the landlord provided its final response following the panel hearing on 10 February 2020, rescheduled from 31 January 2020. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the hearing had to be rearranged at short notice from 31 January 2020.
2. The panel were unable to respond to the resident’s procedural concerns about the hearing as they did not form part of the original complaint. The landlord confirmed that it would respond to these concerns separately outside of the complaint procedure.
3. It acknowledged that the resident felt they were not given enough time to explain their complaint during the panel hearing. The landlord confirmed that the panel gave the resident forty-five minutes to present their complaint, instead of the usual ten minutes.
4. The panel were satisfied that it took fire safety very seriously. The landlord confirmed that the panel noted that it had shared the fire risk assessment with the resident and spent time discussing it with them. The landlord confirmed that the panel however had recommended that it reconsider the agreement with the contractor to complete an attendance log.
5. The panel noted that the landlord had agreed to remove the contingency fund from the fire maintenance service charge which was reasonable. The landlord confirmed that the panel had identified during the hearing that the resident would like additional information regarding the service charges in relation to fire safety covering the past three years and recommended that the information was provided to them. The landlord confirmed that the panel accepted its apology that it had not “made effort to understand” the resident’s service charge query earlier.
6. The panel was satisfied that its letter to all residents, dated 28 August 2019, regarding the fire safety procedure for the building was satisfactory.
The landlord concluded that the resident may refer their complaint to the Ombudsman if they were not satisfied with its response.
On receipt of the landlord’s final response the resident raised concerns that the letter was not signed by the chair of the panel and that he was not informed that a panel member had been substituted prior to the hearing.
On 12 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to providing a substantive and detailed response to their procedural concerns regarding the panel hearing.

Assessment and findings

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

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) sets out that the responsible person for multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment in communal areas, making sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire. The Ombudsman notes that there are no specific time periods in law for how often fire risk assessments must be carried out or reviewed, the requirement is for the assessment to be reviewed “regularly” to make sure it is up to date.
The evidence shows that the landlord is complying with The Regulatory Reform Order as it is undertaking regular fire risk assessments of the building to identify and mitigate risks. This is appropriate. The most recent inspections were undertaken in May 2018 and September 2020.
In response to the resident’s request for more information in relation to fire safety in respect of the building, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the fire risk assessment completed in May 2018. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable course of action to explain the findings and to respond to the resident’s concerns. While the resident suggests that the assessment was “not worth the paper it was written on”, including as it did not assess individual properties, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the assessment. This is because the assessment was undertaken by a competent person with appropriate knowledge and expertise. Further the Ombudsman notes that the fire risk assessment was not required to include individual properties, only communal areas.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety in the building the landlord wrote to all residents providing details on the fire safety procedure for the building on 18 August 2019. While the resident is not satisfied with the content of the letter, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the letter was satisfactory as it explained how the landlord was meeting its requirements under the Regulatory Reform Order by completing fire risk assessments and detailed the evacuation policy in place at the building. The time taken to produce the letter will be commented on within the complaint handling section below.
While the resident reports that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not provide information to residents on the fire safety procedure prior to their complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not unreasonable that the landlord did not do so. This is because the fire risk assessment, dated May 2018, set out that “all emergency routes and exits were indicated by appropriately positioned durable signs” and “fire action notices were clearly displayed throughout the building” thus indicating to the Ombudsman that residents had access to appropriate information.
As part of their complaint the resident challenged the landlord’s decision to maintain the system as it was not a legal requirement. The Ombudsman notes that the fire risk assessment dated May 2018 supports that the system is not necessary. In responding to the complaint the landlord explained that it was maintaining the system as an “additional precaution”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate that the landlord explained its decision to maintain the system despite it not being necessary. The Ombudsman will not criticise the landlord for taking additional steps to promote fire safety.
While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s view they should not be charged for the system’s maintenance as part of the service charge the Ombudsman is not able to comment on the reasonableness of the charge. This would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (FTT). This is because the FTT can make determinations on all aspects of liability to pay a service charge. In order to determine liability the FTT will consider if the charge has been reasonably incurred.
While the resident is unhappy with the details the landlord provided regarding the fire safety contract the Ombudsman is satisfied that the information that the landlord did provide was satisfactory and did reasonably address the resident’s requests. Most notably on 16 January 2019 and 25 April 2019 the landlord provided details on the individual elements of the fire safety contract explaining that the work of the contractor included testing and maintenance of fire equipment and the provision of signage.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident’s request for the introduction of an attendance log for the fire safety contract was not unreasonable as a means to satisfy both the landlord and residents that the contract was being delivered. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to not accede to the resident’s request does not amount to a service failure. This is because the landlord explained that an attendance log did not form part of the fire safety contract and would incur additional costs to residents if introduced. While the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s decision amounts to a service failure the Ombudsman agrees with the panel’s recommendation to explore an attendance log with the contractor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for fire safety and maintenance

The lease agreement for the property sets out that the resident must contribute to the service charge for the services provided in relation to the building. The lease indicates that the resident must make advance payments which are based on an estimate of the cost in the year to come.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the contingency included in the service charge for fire safety and maintenance the landlord reviewed the charge. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable response to the concerns raised by the resident in order to assess whether the contingency was reasonable or not. The evidence shows that following the review the landlord agreed to remove the contingency from the service charge for fire safety and maintenance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The time taken to consider the complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure was significantly protracted. The resident registered their complaint in December 2018 and a final response was not provided until February 2020. This is approximately 14 months. While the evidence shows that the landlord was responding to the complaint informally in-between its formal complaint responses, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not mitigate that the landlord did not progress the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. For example, despite the resident requesting to escalate their complaint to stage two in February 2019, the landlord did not provide its formal response until 30 July 2019 and the panel hearing was not convened for approximately four months after the resident made their request. This is unsatisfactory including as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. Further the landlord’s delay in responding to the complaint formally also delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
In responding to the complaint the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord fully addressed the resident’s request for confirmation as to the sound of the system once triggered and whether it could be heard from inside individual properties. The Ombudsman notes that on 28 August 2019 the landlord said the system “would sound when triggered” but did not provide further details. This is unsatisfactory.
As part of its stage one response in January 2019 the landlord committed to providing an update to all residents regarding the fire procedure at the building. Despite its commitment the landlord did not provide the update until August 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this delay is unsatisfactory, including as it was an action the landlord had committed to undertaking to resolve the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord apologised that the update was delayed.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised procedural concerns regarding the panel hearing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord confirmed that it would not respond to the resident’s concerns as part of its final response. This is because the purpose of the final response was to address the outstanding issues from the original complaint and therefore it would not be appropriate or practical to incorporate these issues into the existing complaint. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns on 12 March 2020.
Notwithstanding the above, and having reviewed the resident’s procedural concerns which include panel composition, length of hearing, opportunity to present evidence and the complaint pack the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which suggests that the hearing to consider the resident’s complaint was unfair. This takes into account that the landlord explained why the panel composition was correct, the landlord amended an error in the complaint chronology and the landlord postponed the hearing in order to gather further information for the panel as requested by the resident. Further the Ombudsman notes that the resident was provided with 45 minutes to address the panel rather the usual allocated time of 10 minutes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for fire safety and maintenance
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling

Reasons

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

The landlord is complying with The Regulatory Reform Order as it is undertaking regular fire risk assessments of the building to identify and mitigate risks.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for information regarding the building’s fire procedure by meeting with the resident to discuss the fire risk assessment and issuing a letter to all residents detailing the fire procedure.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not unreasonable that the landlord had not issued an update to residents on the fire procedure for the building prior to the complaint as the fire risk assessment undertaken in May 2018 identified that fire action notices were clearly displayed throughout the building.
It was appropriate that the landlord explained why it was maintaining the system despite it not being a legal requirement; as an additional precaution.
The landlord provided details on the individual elements of the fire safety contract to the resident which included testing and maintenance of fire equipment and provision of signage.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to refuse the introduction of an attendance log for the fire safety contract was not unreasonable as it explained that it did not form part of the fire safety contract and would incur additional costs to residents if introduced.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for fire safety and maintenance

In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the contingency included in the service charge for fire safety and maintenance the landlord reviewed the charge. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate in order to assess whether the contingency was reasonable or not.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The time taken to consider the complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure was significantly protracted. The resident registered their complaint in December 2018 and a final response was not provided until February 2020. This is approximately 14 months. While the evidence shows that the landlord was responding to the complaint informally in-between its formal complaint responses, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not mitigate that the landlord did not progress the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. The landlord’s delay in responding to the complaint formally also delayed the resident’s access to the Ombudsman.
The landlord did not fully address the resident’s request for confirmation as to the sound of the system once triggered and whether it could be heard from inside individual properties. This is unsatisfactory as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to their complaint.
As part of its stage one response in January 2019 the landlord committed to providing an update to all residents regarding the fire procedure at the building. Despite its commitment the landlord did not provide the update until August 2019. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this delay is unsatisfactory, including as it was an action it had committed to undertaking to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should explore the introduction of an attendance log for the fire safety contract with the contractor if it has not already done so. The landlord should update the resident following the discussion to confirm the outcome.