Mid Devon District Council (202313082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313082

Mid Devon District Council

22 October 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision in response to his request for a replacement of the front door, which the resident considered amounted to discrimination.

Background

The landlord is a local authority. The resident has been a flexible tenant of the landlord since March 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. During the course of the internal complaints process, the resident disclosed to the landlord he had a number of mental health concerns and disabilities.
In May 2018 (before the resident’s tenancy) the landlord supplied and ordered new front doors for the houses in the area in order to comply with updates in fire safety legislation. It ordered 4 identical doors with thumb turn locks as a batch for the houses in the area, including the property subject to this complaint. The landlord carried out modernisation works around 2021 but there is no record of it changing the locks.
In late January 2023 (exact date unknown), the resident returned home and found that he had lost his keys. Several operatives employed by the landlord or its contractor were working on an adjacent property. One of them observed the resident kicking his own front door with some force. They spoke with the resident and suggested he contact the landlord’s office to request a lock change. According to the operative, the resident declined to do so citing an ongoing dispute with the office about gas issues. The operative then lent a ladder to the resident so he could enter his house through an open window.
The landlord’s account and the resident’s account are in agreement that, having entered his own house, the resident then attempted to cut the whole lock out of the door with a jigsaw. Images taken by the resident on or around 25 January 2023 showed deep cuts in the door around the lock. The operative further described that the resident took off the door handles and snapped the lock. The operative stopped the resident in the middle of cutting a hole in the door and helped him open the door (which they did by flipping a lever on the lock), then reported the incident to their own manager.
The resident’s account is that the operative removed the ladder after he went up and he felt trapped inside his own home, causing him to panic and attempt to cut his way out. He said he changed the locks following this incident.
An unknown party threw paint over the resident’s front door, staircase and adjacent walls in the hallway on 25 January 2023. The resident reported this to the landlord and the police as vandalism. He sent pictures of the door to the landlord.
The landlord noted from these photos that, apart from the paint, the door had been cut deeply around the lock and was damaged beyond repair. It considered the door had to be replaced and sent a “quote” to the resident on 1 February 2023 stating that the costs for replacement would be £1274.60. It asked the resident to grant it access so the replacement could go ahead.
The resident rejected the “quote” on 2 February 2023. From 2 to 6 February 2023, there were a number of exchanges through email and phone calls between the resident and the landlord. The resident explained that he tried to cut the lock out himself and so wanted to be responsible for fixing the door himself. He told the landlord he could get a relative to repair the door for him at no cost. He also disclosed to the landlord he was struggling with mental health issues.
The officer explained that, while the resident had the option of arranging replacement of the door, he must ensure the door meet the criteria for fire safety regulations. They also said they would do their best to explore if there was any way they could help with cost reduction. After the exchange, the landlord internally discussed the possibility of charging only for labour and materials so as to reduce the cost of replacement for the resident, and facilitating professional mental health support for him.
On 14 February 2023, the resident emailed the officer to say that as the door was never fitted with a thumb turn lock, it was not compliant with safety standards in the first place, and therefore the landlord should be liable for the full costs of replacement.
In response, the landlord explained in an email of 17 February 2023 that the original door had a thumb turn lock installed as of May 2018, and having checked its repairs history, it could confirm the lock had never been altered or replaced by the landlord since installation. It also provided links to fire safety regulations online. The landlord said the resident could discuss and agree a payment plan in instalments with the neighbourhood officer if he wished, or arrange the replacement himself as long as he could prove the new door would be compliant with the safety regulations.
The resident continued to dispute that he was liable for the door damage and said he would get independent legal advice. The landlord explained that he was within his rights to do so and he could raise a formal complaint if he wished.
From February to May 2023, the landlord attempted to contact the resident multiple times for an update on this issue to see if the resident would allow access for the replacement to be carried out by the landlord’s staff, or if he had arranged replacement by himself. The resident did not respond.
On 24 May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord and the police that he could not access the flat as he believed someone had glued the lock to his door. The landlord arranged an appointment with the resident’s consent and inspected the door on 30 May 2023. It found the door was secure but it needed to replace the lock. This was done on the same day.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 June 2023 to say:
1. The lock on the door when he moved in was not in line with safety regulations.
2. The door did not fit the frame correctly and was not in line with safety regulations.
3. The landlord discriminated against him on the basis of his mental health disabilities.
4. He believed the landlord should be liable for the full costs of replacing the door.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 June 2023, summarised as follows:
1. It had already explained to the resident previously that the door was fitted with a thumb turn lock in May 2018, in line with building and safety regulations, and the landlord had not altered or changed the locks during the resident’s tenancy (that is, up till May 2023 when the lock was further damaged in a separate incident). The resident had changed the locks himself after the incident in January 2023 after damaging the door.
2. The tenancy agreement stipulated that the landlord would not be liable for any repair of any damage caused by the resident himself, whether accidentally or deliberately, and the resident would need to bear the costs.
3. In line with the landlord’s recharge policy, the resident still had the option of arranging the repairs himself, if he undertook to ensure the replacement would meet the relevant health and safety standards. If he could not arrange this, the landlord would continue to seek recompense from him for the door replacement.
The resident asked for an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 4 July 2023 and further complained that the door at the time when he moved in was too small for the frame and therefore not in line with fire safety regulations. He also said the landlord’s operatives had “trapped” him in his flat and he had no alternative but to cut his way out, and therefore he should not be liable for the replacement of the door.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 7 July 2023 summarised as follows:
1. The landlord’s repairs operative had witnessed the resident kicking the door and cutting across the door with a jigsaw in January 2023.
2. The landlord repeated that it installed 4 doors with thumb turns in May 2018 in houses in that area and the resident’s property was one of these houses. It said it had further checked the door of one of the adjacent properties to confirm that this door had a thumb turn.
3. It believed the door and door frame was in good repair and fully in line with safety regulations before the resident damaged it by force and changed the locks himself.
4. It repeated that it had offered to renew the door which was a rechargeable service. If the resident wished to, he had the right to arrange someone else to replace it but the work must be done by a competent person to an agreed specification, and he must provide a FENSA certificate to prove that the door fulfilled building and safety regulations.
5. It offered to fit a key safe at the property free of charge for the resident, so that he could access a spare key at all times and prevent similar incidents from happening.
The resident referred the matter to this Service on 11 July 2023 and sent in an image of the door, saying that:
1. The intumescent strip at the bottom of the door was combustible and unsafe.
2. The gap at the bottom of the door was too wide by half a centimetre and against fire safety regulations.
3. The door did not have a thumb turn lock installed which was against the fire safety regulations.
4. As an outcome he would like the landlord to replace the door at no cost to himself.

Events following the end of the internal complaints process

In response to enquiries from this Service, the landlord provided further information on 7 March 2024 to say that:
1. It was still awaiting the resident to grant it access so it could replace the door, or to arrange a replacement himself.
2. The door gap on the underside would not have exceeded 10mm when the intumescent strip was in place. It said the intumescent strip was fixed around 2021 but the resident’s images showed that it had now been torn away.
3. The door and door frame had been damaged by the resident in January 2023 and it was no longer in the same condition as it was at the time of installation.

Assessment and findings

Relevant guidance and policy

The Building Regulations 2010 (Approved Document B on Fire Safety) state that doors on escape routes should be easy to operate, either without fastenings or fitted with only simple fastenings which should be operable without a key, and without requiring people to manipulate more than one mechanism. While the regulations do not explicitly state this, the Ombudsman accepts that a thumb turn would satisfy this requirement.
The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 state that the gap between a flat entrance door and the frame should not be too large – this should not exceed 4mm on all sides of the door except the bottom, where the gap should be as small as practicable. There is no specific numeric reference in these regulations as to the maximum width for the underside gap. The property in this case is a bungalow rather than a flat, however, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord and the resident’s information that the standard for the door gap on the underside for a property of this type should be no more than 10mm.
The landlord’s recharge policy states that a tenant would be recharged for any work that is the tenant’s responsibility, including damage to doors, walls, plaster or the structure of the property. The tenancy agreement and the tenant handbook further expressly confirm this.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

The landlord’s handling of replacement of the damaged door

The resident has complained that the door when his tenancy began was against fire safety regulations in the following ways:
1. There was no thumb turn lock in place.
2. The door did not fit properly into the frame.
3. The gap on the underside was 15mm and therefore 0.5cm too wide.
4. The intumescent strip was combustible and unsafe.
There is no dispute that the resident damaged the door himself in January 2023 by kicking it with considerable force and then cutting it with a jigsaw around the lock. There is also no dispute that he changed the locks thereafter.
The resident had not raised any concern with the landlord about the door being against fire safety regulations before he caused the damage and became potentially liable for the costs of replacement.
There is no evidence from the resident to support that the thumb turn lock was not in place as of January 2023 before he caused the damage and changed the locks. The landlord’s records on the other hand show that the door on the adjacent property was supplied at the same time as the resident’s door and was identical in design, and the landlord had been able to show that the door on the adjacent property had a thumb turn lock in place.
Given the evidence available, on balance the Ombudsman’s view is that we can conclude with reasonable confidence that the original door did have a thumb turn lock at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy.
The Ombudsman accepts that kicking and cutting the door would very likely have damaged the door and affected how it fitted into the frame, as well as the gap size. We note the difference in the landlord and resident’s positions as to whether there the door met fire safety standards before the door was damaged and the locks changed. However there is no evidence to confirm the door did not meet the fire safety standards before the damage in January 2023.
The landlord acted fully in line with the tenancy agreement and its recharge policy by providing an estimation of costs for the resident and arranging replacement of the door. It was positive to see the landlord did this promptly without delay after the resident caused this damage. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that the replacement of the door should go ahead as soon as possible for the resident’s own safety as well as the safety of other residents in the area in the event of fires.
The landlord has also acted fairly and reasonably in offering the resident a number of alternatives to resolve the issue and in considering what actions it could take to reduce the financial burden on the resident. These include: the resident arranging the replacement himself at a lower cost as long as safety standards were met; or putting the resident on an agreed payment plan so he could pay off the replacement cost in instalments. The communication from the landlord has been clear.
With regards to the resident’s allegation that the landlord discriminated against him on basis of his mental health disabilities, the Ombudsman can see no evidence that the landlord has failed to consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010. On the contrary, the landlord has gone above and beyond in trying to support the resident, by offering him alternative payment options, exploring options to reduce the costs of replacement, and checking if it could facilitate professional mental health support for him. It also offered to fit a key safe at the property free of charge to the resident, as part of its complaint response.
Due to the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s decision on this, or its overall approach to the matter.
The Ombudsman understands that, due to the dispute over responsibility for replacing the door and whether the resident should be recharged for this work, the door has yet to be replaced. In order to encourage a resolution to this issue, we have made recommendations for further actions below.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s decision with regards to the resident’s requests for replacement of the front door.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident to confirm it can either replace the door subject to a recharge, or the resident could replace the door himself subject to conditions previously set out by the landlord. The landlord should ask the resident to confirm his decision and then take steps as appropriate.
The landlord should also repeat its previous offer of installing a key safe when it contacts the resident and take steps to arrange this if he agrees to it.