One Vision Housing Limited (202004724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004724

One Vision Housing Limited

10 November 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. Decision that the resident should be permanently decanted.
2. Handling of the decant.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident moved into the property in 2006; he has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a two-bedroomed flat on the 9th floor of a 14-floor block (the block). The resident has a representative, a family member, who has assisted with his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman.
The landlord should make sure that the property is safe and free from any hazards and is fit to live in throughout the tenancy. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System guidance, the landlord is responsible for protection against accidents which includes, among other things, structural collapse.
Large Panel System (LPS) construction became popular in the UK in the 1960s. An LPS high-rise block typically consists of factory-made panels assembled on‑site. Initially, floor and wall panels were inserted into the structural, load‑bearing frame of the building and were kept in place by only their own weight. Following the partial collapse of a block in Newham in 1968 there was a programme whereby such LPS blocks were strengthened by connecting the panels together rather than relying on gravity.
Residents have been decanted from other LPS buildings in UK including Hammersmith and Fulham in November 2017; Rugby and Leicester in April 2018; and Portsmouth in June 2018. (Source: Inside Housing.)
The landlord’s decant policy says that from time to time the landlord may require to decant a resident from the property and, in the majority of those cases, the move will be temporary. However, some cases may require a permanent decant. Reasons for a decant include:
1. A building is unsafe or hazardous.
2. Work is required to a building that may be harmful to occupants.
3. The building is due for re-modelling, demolition or extended repair.
The policy says that residents are entitled to home loss compensation where a permanent decant is required.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at both stages within ten working day unless the investigation requires more time, in which case the policy says that the customer will be advised of the revised timescale.

Summary of events

On 5 September 2017 the Department for Communities and Local Government (known as the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government from January 2018 – the MHCLG) wrote to the chief executives of all housing associations in the UK with regard to the safety of LPS buildings following concerns raised about four blocks in the London Borough of Southwark (paragraph 4). They said, among other things, that buildings containing gas supplies needed to be stronger in order to remain structurally stable in the event of a gas explosion. They recommended that landlords should ascertain whether its LPS buildings had piped gas, and if they did, take action to ensure that these buildings can carry piped gas safely. It recommended that landlords considered taking expert advice.
The landlord engaged an engineering company (the engineering company) and in early March 2018 they reported that the block had some LPS construction as well as a piped gas supply. They said that the government recommendations for LPS tower blocks with piped gas did apply and proposed to undertake targeted intrusive works to investigate the robustness of the block (specifically the presence and arrangement of reinforcement within and between precast concrete wall and floor panels).
On 18 October 2018 the engineering company carried out an intrusive inspection and recommended that further investigations should take place.
On 10 April 2019 a UK gas distribution company (the gas distribution company) wrote to the landlord saying that high-rise, multiple occupancy buildings with a gas supply should be able to withstand an explosive cause. They added that the MHCLG had identified buildings across the UK that it did not consider could withstand an explosion and asked the landlord to respond to them answering various questions about the block. On 15 May 2019 the landlord responded saying that it was currently undertaking intrusive structural surveys on its blocks which it considered to be LPS buildings and was waiting the report and recommendations.
On 26 June 2019 the engineering company undertook a structural investigation of the block. Its conclusions were:
1. The structural design of the block predated the current requirements and there was no evidence that the block satisfied those current requirements.
2. The piped gas supply to the block was a very serious risk as, if there was a gas leak, the structure of the block could fail.
3. Bottled gas within the building was deemed a “tolerable risk” which should be assessed by the landlord who should either remove all bottled gas from the buildings (and accept the residual risk) or strengthen the LPS wall panels.
The engineering company set out the structural strengthening work that it envisaged would be required; this involved decanting all residents.
On 18 July 2019 the resident confirmed to the landlord that he did not use any form of compressed gas.
On 9 September 2019 the landlord decided to permanently decant residents from the block.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord completed a decant survey with the resident who gave details of the “preferred areas” for a move. He asked if he would be able to move back once the block had been “done up”.
On 15 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident about its decision to rehouse residents in the block. It added that he may qualify for a home loss payment of £6,400 and it would cover reasonable removal costs and the cost of connecting electrical appliances.
On 25 November 2019 the gas distribution company wrote to the landlord saying that they understood that the landlord had LPS buildings which were five storeys or more and had not been strengthened. It said that the gas supply would have to be removed, if strengthening the building was not going to take place and it understood that had been discounted in this case. It explained what action it would expect the landlord to take including the removal of gas cookers and installation of methane alarms.
On 2 January 2020 the landlord told the resident that it had identified safety measure that it must implement for residents remaining in the block. It explained that it would remove his gas cooker and replace it with an electric one. It added it would install methane and solenoid alarms in the meantime (these would detect a gas leak and remotely shut off the gas if a leak was identified).
On 23 April 2020 the landlord responded to the representative confirming that it had the resident’s authorisation to communicate with her. Over the following months, the landlord and representative exchanged several emails in which the representative expressed that the resident did not wish to move out of the block and the landlord explained that the future of the block was unknown and it could not establish the repairs required until after a structural survey had been carried out, which would take place after the residents had been decanted.
In an email dated 15 June 2020 the landlord explained to the representative that it had decided to decant the block following “the increased government recommendations and guidance following the Grenfell enquiry”.
On 26 June 2020 the representative asked the landlord to consider a formal complaint from her about the lack of information provided about the permanent decant of the resident.
On 2 July 2020 the landlord spoke to the representative about the complaint. The note of that call says, among other things:
1. The landlord said the block was safe at present. Due to its 1960s construction, it was not viable to spend a lot of money on it so was decanting the residents.
2. Following the Grenfell fire, a lot of regulation and guidance was being considered for all high-rise blocks.
The representative asked if the landlord had based its decision to decant the residents on a report about its construction and, if so, could that be shared with residents. The landlord noted that the representative said that only the release of such a report, would resolve the complaint.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the representative at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said the complaint was that it had not given sufficient information to the resident about the decant. The landlord explained that, while the block was safe at that time, there would come a time when major internal and external structural work was required and it had decided that it should decant residents while the block was still safe.
The landlord provided a list of frequently asked questions about the decant. These explained among other things that, since the Grenfell tragedy, the Government had continued to put increased focus on the requirements of high‑rise blocks. As a result, it had identified that the block would require considerable, intrusive structural work which could not be completed safely with residents in situ and therefore it was necessary to carry out permanent decants for residents. The landlord also said that it would support residents to move.
On 20 July 2020 there was a gas leak in the block. The gas distribution company permanently isolated the mains riser on the same day. On 6 November 2020 the gas distribution company told the landlord that they intended to isolate the remaining mains gas supply to the block on 18 January 2021; this was subsequently extended to 15 February 2021.
On 3 August 2020 the representative told the landlord that the resident would not be moving out of the property until it provided proper information as to why the decant was necessary. In response the landlord explained that it would continue to make offers to the resident until he either accepted an offer or it started legal action.
On 14 October 2020 the representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 28 October 2020 the landlord told the representative that it needed more time to respond and had extended the response time by a week.
On 3 December 2020 the landlord told the resident that gas to the property would be cut off on 7 December 2020. It added it would be converting existing heating and hot water to electricity over the following days.
On 10 December 2020 the landlord told the representative that it required further time to respond as it was working with an independent structural engineer, which would enable it to share a written report with her, as per her request. It offered a meeting with her and the managing director to discuss the decant and answer any question she had.
On 17 December 2020 the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation following an interruption to the water supply at the block.
In response to the representative’s further email of 16 December 2020 chasing the final complaint response, the landlord said that it would share the independent report with her as soon as it was able to. The representative chased progress again on 22 December 2020 and 4 January 2021.
On 8 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the representative at the final stage of its final complaints procedure. It did not uphold the complaint. The main points were:
1. It had been in constant communication with all residents since it had decided to permanently decant and rehouse residents from the block. Following building surveys and investigations, residents had been informed that extensive works would be required to the block that were structurally intrusive and which could not be sensibly or safely completed with residents in situ.
2. Since residents were initially informed of the decision, it had had a dedicated member of staff assigned specifically to the decant programme, to work closely with residents to provide information, answer any questions and support residents with the re-housing process. About 90% of residents had been successfully rehoused to date, and it continued to work with the remaining residents to find rehousing that met their needs.
3. The safety of residents had been paramount throughout and this was demonstrated when residents were offered temporary accommodation in December 2020. The decision to offer temporary accommodation was made following ongoing building surveys and discussions with specialist advisors, as there was uncertainty around aspects of the safety of the block and it needed to carry out additional urgent investigations to provide a clearer picture of the situation.
4. As the block was built using elements of LPS construction, steps had to be taken to remove the piped gas supply from the block. It had worked closely with the gas network provider to implement a number of mitigations, including the installation of methane detectors, solenoids and monthly checks, whilst it progressed the removal of the gas supply from the block, which was now complete.
5. There was extensive, intrusive structural works still to be undertaken, which it could not sensibly undertake whilst residents remained in the block.
6. It was unable to share written structural reports with the representative as they were commercial sensitive. However, it was working with specialist consultants to produce a summary report that could be shared, which would set out the details relating to the structure of the block. It was confident it could provide the representative with a copy the following week.
7. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide this complaint response and it hoped the resident would now consider the property it had previously offered.
The landlord signposted the representative to the Ombudsman.
On 14 January 2021 a civil engineering company produced a summary report. This explained the background to LPS construction and said they considered the block contained LPS which they said was “a defective form of construction”. They explained that an “adverse loading incident”, such as a gas explosion, could result in a panel collapsing which would result in all the panels above falling to the ground resulting in a “disproportionate collapse”. They added that the block did not conform to “fundamental parts” of the current building regulations.
The civil engineering company concluded that the remaining residents in the block should be moved in the interests of safety. It added that the current guidance with respect to this form of defective construction was to either repair the block or to demolish it. This report was shared with the representative on 15 January 2021.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord sent the representative a further complaint response. It said that it had not forced any resident of the block to move; that the resident was “one of only a very small number of residents” who had not moved out; and that the summary report that had been provided to the representative was clear about the ongoing safety risks and concerns about the block.
On 19 April 2021 the civil engineering company provided a report to the landlord following an intrusive investigation of the walls, floor and empty apartments within the block on 10 December 2020. The scope of the report was to determine the construction details for various elements of the structural frame of the block.
When the representative approached the Ombudsman, she said that she would like the landlord to provide evidence of the reason why it was removing people from social housing when there was a shortage of social housing in the area. She said she would also like the landlord to explain why the decant was essential. The representative said the resident was suffering from anxiety caused by this situation; had recently put in a right-to-buy application and would like to remain in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision that the resident should be permanently decanted

The landlord’s decision to permanently decant the resident was reasonable. By June 2019, following action taken in response to a recommendation from the MHCLG (paragraph 9), the landlord was aware that the block was potentially dangerous (paragraph 13). It therefore had a responsibility to act to protect the health and safety of the residents (paragraph 3). Given that, its decision to permanently decant all residents from the block in September 2019 (paragraph 16) was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the decant

Following the report of June 2019, the landlord took appropriate action by ensuring the resident did not have bottled gas in the property (paragraph 15) and completing a decant survey with him (paragraph 17).
However, the information provided by the landlord did not demonstrate that it was clear with the resident about the reason for the move when it carried out this decant survey with him. In its subsequent communication with the representative, the landlord was again not transparent about the reasons for the move; given this, the resident’s reluctance to move was not unexpected. This lack of openness evidently drove the complaint.
The landlord should have been open about the reasons for the move sooner; the clear explanation – which was set out in the summary report eventually provided to the representative in January 2021 over two years after the decision to decant – set out that the building was unlikely to withstand a gas explosion (paragraph 38). While it was reasonable for the landlord to commission that report, the landlord was aware of the reasons for the decant in June 2019 and the delay in sharing the reasons for it with the resident was not appropriate.
Given the potential danger to the residents of the block, it is reasonable to conclude that providing accurate information to the resident sooner may have assisted with the decant. This should have been a priority for the landlord given the safety concerns.
The landlord also did not act appropriately by reassuring the representative that the block was safe in July 2020 (paragraph 24) when the piped gas was not removed until at least December 2020 (paragraph 32). The gas leak later that month (paragraph 28) was evidence of the genuine risk that the remaining residents in the block were exposed to. It is not clear from the evidence provided if the installed methane alarms and solenoids worked as intended bu automatically shutting down the gas supply.
The landlord’s failure to be transparent about the reasons for the decant, meant that the resident was deprived of an opportunity to make an informed decision about the move. It also meant that the representative took time and trouble in pursuing this matter as the information conveyed to her by the landlord did not convince her or the resident that the move was essential.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In this case, there was no incident which impacted on the resident and the evidence suggests that he was unaware of the potential danger to him by remaining in the block. Nonetheless, it is evident that the resident has suffered inconvenience and distress from having to pursue the matter. Therefore, compensation of £250 is appropriate for the time and trouble taken by having to pursue the complaint; a further £250 is appropriate for depriving the resident an opportunity to make an informed decision about the decant sooner. These sums are within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been poor communication.

Complaint handling

The stage one response was issued within the timescale of ten working days (paragraph 8). At stage two the landlord was unable to respond within the time limit of ten working days because it had decided to commission an independent report to share with her and the resident. The landlord’s handling of this delay was not appropriate; while it explained the reason for the delay on 28 October 2020 (paragraph 31), it did not give a revised timescale in line with its complaints procedure (paragraph 8). This meant that the representative had to chase the landlord (paragraph 35) and the landlord failed to respond to the later chasing emails of 22 December 2020 and 4 January 2021. These complaint handling failures amount to a service failure.
The impact of this was that the representative had to spend time chasing the landlord for a complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the decant.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision that the resident should be permanently decanted.

Reasons

Communication about the decant with the resident and representative was poor. By failing to be transparent about the reason for the decant it deprived the resident of an opportunity to make an informed choice earlier. This meant he was exposed to a potentially dangerous situation for longer than necessary.
The landlord did not follow its complaint procedures by failing to give a revised timescale for the stage two complaint response.
The landlord’s decision to decant the resident was reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident and the representative for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £500 for its failings in handling the decant.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £50 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
4. Arrange to meet the resident to discuss the way forward with regard to the decant and how it will provide assistance with it.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
1. Remind staff about the need to give a deadline when extending the date for a complaint response.