The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

North Northamptonshire Council (202231781)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231781

North Northamptonshire Council

22 April 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s concerns regarding the fire alarm in the property.
    2. Communication about the fire evacuation plan.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced in July 2019 and ended in June 2023. The resident has hearing difficulties.
  2. On 8 June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord by email. She said the noise level of the fire alarm system was too high and causing detriment to her and other residents. She noted on 5 June 2021 the fire alarm sounded and the fire service arrived 20 minutes later. She felt the noise level in the communal corridors were sufficient and there was no need to have further alarms within each flat in the block. She also thought the fire alarms were not compliant with the British Standard Institution for the alarm system and referenced code ‘BS5839-6’.
  3. After a phone conversation, the resident emailed the landlord adding that the residents in the block had information cards about staying put as part of the fire safety plan. She also told the landlord, she was informed by a member of staff that was the case. The landlord replied that these cards were older, and the policy was changed from October 2019. It said the policy should also be displayed in the notice board and attached the latest fire evacuation plan to the email. It said it would speak to its member of staff regarding the fire evacuation plan.
  4. The resident reached out to the local fire service and on 14 July 2021 was told they had contacted the landlord to review its policy on the audibility of the alarm, and to clarify the evacuation process. They also told the resident that there must be adequate means of warning which there was, and alarms inside the homes were not part of their remit. The resident continued to complain about this and on 4 January 2022, told the landlord that the noise level was not acceptable, and a member of staff leaves the alarms sounding for a prolonged period. Her MP also contacted the landlord about her concerns on 7 January 2022.
  5. On 26 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the alarms were tested weekly and there would be discrepancy in the time it takes individuals to turn off all the alarms, as the area needed to be checked. It told the resident the noise level was compliant under British Standards Institute’s BS5839 part 1 (2017). A noise test was conducted on 10 June 2021 where the readings were 93.4 decibels inside the flat and 89.6 decibels in the common area. It provided justification that fire alarms were designed to rouse residents from sleep. It explained it operated a stay put policy, but this was changed in 2019 when an evacuation strategy was introduced. From June 2021, it reissued leaflets containing the fire evacuation plan. Additionally, it offered to support her moving from the property and a staff had helped her complete the rehousing application.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the response and escalated the complaint through the help of her MP on 11 February 2022. She said 1 alarm in the property was sufficient under the rules of the British Standards Institute. She and other residents were not provided an update regarding the change in fire evacuation policy in 2019 and she felt the landlord should have expedited her move to an alternative property.
  7. On 22 March 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said a thorough response was provided at stage 1 of its internal complaint’s procedure, however a contractor completes a fire risk assessment annually and data is kept of any issues found. It told the resident that its fire evacuation policy since 2019 has been for residents to evacuate if safe to do so. This was on the notice board by the main entrance. Residents had also taken part in an evacuation drill, which she was unable to attend but would have been an opportunity for her to speak to its staff. She was still able to speak to members of staff for support on site. At the time of the final response, her rehousing application was being assessed, but there was a backlog more than 4 months. It apologised for the delay regarding the rehousing application, but it had not approved whether she needed to move. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not contain referral rights to this Service.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and continued dialogue with the landlord regarding a move from the property. It told her she could supply medical evidence to support the application. She sent evidence of an audiogram showing she has suffered hearing loss on 1 September 2022. She felt this happened because of the sound of the fire alarms in the property. The landlord asked whether she could supply a previous audiogram to evidence that her hearing had deteriorated while at the property.
  9. The resident first contacted this Service on 14 March 2023 and requested we investigate her complaint. She confirmed she had left the property and moved to a different area of her own accord, as the alternative properties offered by the landlord were not suitable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted the resident said that due to the noise of the fire alarms, her hearing was affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on the resident’s health and the resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint.
  2. Further, the resident provided the landlord evidence of an audiogram, it is unclear whether additional evidence was provided as requested by it regarding her history of hearing. However, as these issues had been raised after the landlord’s final response of 13 March 2022, it has not had the opportunity to respond through its internal complaints process. This Service is unable to investigate any new issue that has arisen following its final response. Although, we can comment on whether the landlord had followed through on any agreements it might have made during its complaint process. We can also consider how the landlord responded to the issues about the level of noise from the fire alarms and have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation involving the fire alarms caused.
  3. Additionally, this Service cannot consider complaints which relate to an application for rehousing made to a local authority. We acknowledge the resident left the property, as she felt no suitable alternative properties were offered by the landlord. However, the complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). It is suggested that the resident contact the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is to keep the structure, exterior and interior fixture, and fittings of the property in good repair. This includes the common area.
  2. The landlord has 24-hour response to emergency repairs. For urgent repairs it aims to complete them within 10 working day. It states for ‘jobbing’ repairs, it will be completed within 35 working days.
  3. The landlord also operates a 2 stage complaints process. If the resident complained by email, at stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It intends to provide a response in 20 working days, however it will inform the resident if it is going to take longer At stage 2, it will provide a response in 20 working days.

Concerns regarding the fire alarm in the property

  1. The resident has disputed the suitability of the fire alarm, due to the noise and disturbance it created. When she first complained to the landlord on 8 June 2021, the landlord promptly conducted a sound test after 2 working days, which was appropriate and over and above its urgent repairs policy position. The sound test of 10 June 2021 found the level of noise complied with the standards required of it. It communicated this to the resident, who remained dissatisfied. This Service has not seen that the landlord has contravened any policies by not changing the fire alarms. As the alarms were functioning and not in a state of disrepair, it would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to replace them.
  2. The landlord also explained in its complaint responses that it was reliant on the fire service to check that all areas are safe, before silencing the alarms. It also noted it could take some time for its staff members to reach the required points. The frequency of the tests were weekly and this would happen on the same day and time each week. The details were displayed on the notice board in the block, which was reasonable and fair in the circumstances.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022, it provided support by assisting her in completing a rehousing application on 20 January 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and it offered reassurance in its final response that despite a backlog, it was still processing the application and would update her.
  4. Ultimately, the landlord demonstrated that it assessed the fire alarms in the block and the sound generated from them. Its response and conclusions were based on the information available to it, and it took reasonable steps to help the resident with a rehousing application. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take and it demonstrated that it considered her concerns. The resident had not demonstrated to the landlord prior to exhausting the complaints process any requirement for reasonable adjustments, where it should have done something differently on an exceptional basis. As a result, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the fire alarm in the property.

Communication about the fire evacuation plan.

  1. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have communicated clearly with the resident throughout.
  2. When the resident moved into the property, she said when the fire alarm sounded, the advice and policy at the time was to stay put. This was the information provided by the landlord and evidence of this has been seen by this Service. She believed this to have been unchanged until 10 June 2021 when she was told by the landlord the policy was to evacuate. The resident also said she was told by a member of staff the policy was to stay put. As a result of her complaint, the landlord clarified its position on the fire evacuation plan on 10 June 2021 and later reissued new information cards to residents in the block. It also addressed the misinformation by its staff member and said it would provide feedback to that staff member. It also took the opportunity to inform the resident of the current fire evacuation plan. These actions were fair and customer focused.
  3. Further, the resident disputed that not all residents were notified in October 2019 that the policy had changed. Historically, the landlord did operate a stay put policy, so this element was not disputed. In its final response, the landlord apologised for any confusion regarding this and detailed that the evacuation plan could be found on the notice board by the main entrance and that it had reissued the leaflet to residents, but it was changed in October 2019. This response was fair and provided clarity on the matter. It also demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously by organising a fire evacuation test with the residents.
  4. Although we do not doubt the resident’s version of events, the landlord has evidenced that in the event of a fire or test drill, the strategy was changed to evacuation (when safe to do so). Prior to putting the landlord on notice that residents believed the policy was to stay put, this had not caused the resident any detriment. Ultimately, she was notified of the change on 10 June 2021 and it apologised for any confusion caused. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication about the fire evacuation plan.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. It is unclear from the information provided as to why the landlord did not enter the resident’s complaint of 8 June 2021 into its internal complaint’s procedure at the outset. In its stage 1 complaint response of 26 January 2022, it referred to her initial complaint email of 8 June 2021 and her complaint email of 4 January 2022. The resident also involved her MP on 7 January 2022 and following this, the landlord responded with a stage 1 complaint response. Although it provided a stage 1 complaint response 16 working days after the resident’s email of 4 January 2022, it had been 163 working days since she complained of the issues. This was inappropriate and far exceeded the timeline it sets in its complaints policy. Although it acknowledged some delays in its final response, it did not attempt to put things right or demonstrate learning, which was a failing on the landlord’s part.
  2. It is also evident that the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaint process, both in June 2021 and January 2022. The resident expended time and trouble by raising her complaint points again in January 2022. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and not in line with its policy, which states it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days.
  3. There were further delays in the landlord’s complaint handling after the resident’s MP escalated her complaint on 11 February 2023. A stage 2 the complaint response was not issued until 26 working days later. This was a 6 working day delay, which was outside the parameters of its complaints policy and therefore inappropriate.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) notes that a final response should detail how to escalate the matter to this Service if the resident remains dissatisfied. In its final response of 22 March 2022, although it did include referral rights to the LGSCO, it omitted information regarding this Service and how to refer the complaint to us. This was unfair and inappropriate as it would have prevented the resident from knowing that she could bring the matter to this Service.
  5. It is clear the resident had expended efforts in chasing a response to her complaint and seeking further clarity. Overall its complaint handling was poor. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who had contacted the local fire service and her MP, as she felt progress was not made through the landlord’s internal complaints process. As a result of the above failures, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders to put things right have been made which take into consideration the cumulative effect on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the fire alarms.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of communication about the fire evacuation plan.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, £150 in compensation for the time and trouble expended, and delays in relation to its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is to provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. It is also recommended the landlord reviews and familiarises itself with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024, which became statutory on 1 April 2024.