Onward Homes Limited (202009646)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009646

Onward Homes Limited

23 August 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 that it had failed to complete recommendations following fire risk assessments.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding its proposal to replace the front doors of all properties within the building she owns a property in.
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 daughter has assisted the resident in respect of the complaint. The daughter’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s within the report for ease of reference.
On referring her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that the complaint was a group complaint, “made by the majority of the residents” for whom she was acting as the “spokesperson”. The resident did not provide any details of the residents or their consent for the complaint. In responding to the complaint, the landlord did not treat the complaint as a group complaint, responding directly to the resident only.
As there is no evidence of other residents’ consent for the resident to represent them in this case and the landlord did not treat this matter as a group complaint, the Ombudsman has therefore not treated the complaint as a group complaint and has considered the issues as they affected the resident who brought the complaint to this Service alone.

Summary of events

On 22 May 2020 the landlord issued the resident with a Section 20 Notice – intention to carry out works. The works listed to be carried out under the agreement were “individual flat front entrance door renewals and communal compartmentation upgrades”. The landlord explained that it considered it “necessary to carry out the works because it [had] been identified following a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) and flat door survey”. The landlord invited the resident to make observations by 20 June 2020.
On the same day the resident responded to the Section 20 Notice stating that she did not think new doors were needed. Within her correspondence the resident suggested that it was the “wrong time to be taking on work like this” and asked whether the cost of the doors would come out of the reserve fund.
The landlord responded confirming:
1. The works were required following the FRA.
2. The Section 20 and “tender process” would take a few months.
3. It expected the cost of the work to come out of the reserve fund.
4. It would consider the Covid-19 pandemic at the time it was ready to start the work to install the doors.
The resident wrote back to the landlord confirming that its response suggested that it had decided that the work would definitely be going ahead. The resident stated that “this whole thing should be shelved” until the Covid-19 pandemic was over and residents could meet to discuss the proposal.
On 5 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she would like to raise some questions in respect of the Section 20 Notice. The resident noted that she was also asking the questions on behalf of “some other residents”. In summary the resident asked:
1. Who would be paying for the doors and how much would they cost?
2. The “last” FRA did not mention new doors were required.
3. A qualified joiner had confirmed that the current doors were fireproof.
4. Some residents did not want new doors.
The resident concluded by requesting a residents’ meeting with the landlord once the Covid-19 pandemic was over.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. The cost of the doors would be taken from the reserve fund.
2. The costs of the doors, and work, was not yet known. The landlord explained that the work was due to go out to tender and it would then receive estimates which it would share with residents.
3. The most recent FRA recommended that the doors were checked to ensure that they met “requirements”. The landlord confirmed that, in response to this recommendation, it undertook a door survey to check the condition and ensure the fire integrity of each door.
4. It would require a signed statement from the joiner to consider their comments regarding the doors.
5. It understood that residents had concerns about the work to replace the doors and it was “happy to discuss with each resident as queries [arose]”. The landlord confirmed that it would be happy to arrange a meeting with all residents once it was safe to meet.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord issued the resident with a Section 20 Notice – statement of estimates. The landlord confirmed that it had obtained estimates in respect of the works to be carried out to replace the doors and provided details of “three estimates from which to make the final choice of contractor”. The landlord invited the resident to make written observations in relation to any of the statements by 13 September 2020. Within the notice the landlord detailed the observations which it had received in respect of the first Section 20 Notice.
On 15 August 2020 the resident responded to the Section 20 Notice. The resident asked the landlord to clarify how much was in the reserve fund and noted that the FRA did not say that new doors were required – just some adjustments. The resident stated that she was “against wholesale replacement”.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord responded confirming that it was waiting confirmation of the current reserve balance. The landlord advised that it had enclosed a copy of the most recent FRA for the resident to review.
On 25 August 2020 the resident provided the landlord with a “statement from all residents who [did] not want new doors”. The resident stated that “this should be enough for you to shelve the idea”.
On 26 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the door replacement. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that some residents were against new doors however the fire door survey completed following the previous FRA assessment recommended that the doors were replaced with “BWF-CERTFIRE approved and tested door sets”.
2. If it made adjustments to the current doors it would not ensure that the doors were fit for purpose as their integrity would still be questionable.
3. The fire door survey found that “numerous doors were twisted and warped”.
4. Under the terms of the properties’ leases, it was responsible for the maintenance of the doors.
5. The most recent FRA suggested that the doors were fitted with closers. The landlord confirmed that as part of the FRA the surveyor would not have checked each door.
On the same day the resident responded to the landlord. The resident set out that she had read the report following the fire door survey and did not consider it to be “true”. The resident stated that the survey was only a “two-minute glance inside and out”. Within her correspondence the resident requested that the landlord provide a copy of the previous FRA which noted that the doors should be surveyed.
On 8 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that none of the FRAs had stated that the doors needed to be replaced. The resident stated that it was the fire door survey which had stated that the doors needed to be replaced however she disputed that the survey was accurate.
On the same day the landlord responded. The landlord explained that replacement of the doors was necessary to ensure that they met “the required standards to serve their purpose in the event of fire”. The landlord noted that following feedback it had received it was “giving the matter some further consideration to double check everything and [to] ensure that [it was] the appropriate course of action”. The landlord concluded by confirming that it was aware of the financial implications of the proposed works and it “would not take the decision to commit to this level of expenditure unnecessarily”.
On 11 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the Section 20 Consultation. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had received feedback from a number of residents stating that they did not want their door to be replaced and would like the door to be “upgraded” instead.
2. In light of the feedback it had carried out a full review of the situation to ensure that door replacement was absolutely necessary. The landlord confirmed that the review concluded that full replacement of the doors was necessary because:
  1. It had a duty to ensure that the building was equipped to respond appropriately in the event of a fire to keep residents safe. It did this by completing an annual FRA.
  2. The FRAs have recommended various specific works to the doors dating back to 2015 including the installation of intumescent strip and seals as well as door closers.
  3. Following a recent FRA the surveyor had reported that they could not confirm the fire integrity of each individual door during their inspection and recommended a full audit of the doors.
  4. Its surveyor, officer X, carried out a detailed audit of all doors in February 2019. Officer X had an NHC Building studies Degree in Building Surveying and was an associate member of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) and was up to date with training in current fire door assessments.
  5. The audit included “an assessment of all aspects of the door set including the door itself, the frame, gap between the door and frame, hinges, ironmongery, seals, latch and lock”.
  6. If any element of the door did not meet requirements the effectiveness of the door was compromised.
  7. A door must offer 30 minutes of resistance to a fire.
  8. The audit revealed the majority of the doors in the building failed on various elements of the door set.
3. As the doors were not fit for purpose they needed to be replaced.
4. The total cost of the works to replace the doors was £48,085.68 plus VAT. The landlord confirmed that it would normally charge a 10% project management fee however in light of the available funds for the building it had taken the decision to charge a set fee of £500.
5. The reserve fund balance at the end of 2019/20 was £49,459.00
6. It had measures in place to ensure that the works could safely take place in line with Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord noted that it had recently completed works at a similar development earlier in the year which went “smoothly”.
7. It had included some photos “of a recently fitted fire door at another development”.
On 12 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. All but three residents within the building had expressed that they did not want new doors.
2. No FRA had indicated that new doors were necessary.
3. She accepted that some doors may need adjustments.
4. The door survey was unreliable as officer X had not been “entirely truthful about [the] survey” and the checks which they completed.
On 15 September 2020 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. The MP explained that the resident had raised the following concerns:
1. Despite a FRA undertaken three years ago recommending adjustments to the doors, “nothing was done”.
2. The reserve fund would not cover the cost of the door replacement works.
3. It was inappropriate that the landlord wanted to complete the door replacements during the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. Officer X “carried out a thorough door survey of the majority of doors in the block, with the exception of the ones that [they] could not get access to”.
2. Officer X had “the necessary qualifications, training and experience to carry out fire door audits”. The landlord noted that a RICS qualification was not a requirement for carrying out a fire door survey.
3. The decision to replace the doors was “not taken lightly”.
4. It was liaising with its Senior Compliance Manager (SCM) to get “a final opinion” on the door replacement works and it would be in touch shortly.
On the same day the resident responded to the landlord reiterating that the door survey was not conducted properly by officer X.
On 16 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord following review of the door survey. The resident noted that the report was inaccurate as it had noted 40 doors in total, however there were only 34 flats within the building.
On the same day the landlord responded confirming that the 40 doors included the bin store and storeroom doors.
On 17 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that she had “carefully checked the report” and had noted errors in respect of the property’s door. The resident said that the were no dents in the door as reported in the survey and it worked perfectly. The resident noted that it was not clear how officer X had properly checked the door without a screwdriver or a tape measure.
On 18 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had met with the SCM and they were in agreement that the door replacements needed to go ahead.
2. Each door audit took “around 15 minutes and was done following a prescribed format”. The landlord confirmed that the audit included removal of hinges using a screwdriver and a “gap tester” tool was used to look at the gap between the door and frame.
3. While it noted that the resident was “adamant” that the fire door survey was not completed properly it had seen “all of the evidence of the surveys”.
4. If it “thought that installing door closers and strips and seals would be sufficient” it would have chosen this option instead.
On 19 September 2020 the resident wrote to the chief executive to raise concerns about the programme of work proposed to replace the doors. Within her correspondence the resident reiterated that door replacement was not necessary to make the doors compliant with fire regulations, the fire door survey which was completed to inform the works was inaccurate, and no FRA had recommended door replacement.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord responded to the MP. In summary the landlord said:
1. FRAs “over the years” had recommended various upgrades and adjustments to the doors based on a visual inspection. The landlord noted that the recommendations had not been acted upon, including due to “finances”.
2. “In light of the current climate in relation to fire safety and the impending fire safety bill” it must ensure that its buildings had adequate fire protection measures in place. The landlord explained that it therefore completed a fire survey of the doors.
3. The survey revealed that every door within the building failed on a number of components, with some failing on every single one. The landlord therefore confirmed that it intended to install new doors throughout the building.
4. As the building was a leasehold site the works were to be funded by the reserve fund and it was required to carry out a Section 20 consultation.
5. In response to the Section 20 consultation it had received a number of objections, which were connected to the cost of the work.
6. While it appreciated that the cost of the work was “substantial” the work was considered necessary to ensure the safety of all occupants of the building.
On 23 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that its correspondence to the MP was untruthful.
On 29 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she had identified, following her own enquiries, that officer X was not qualified to complete fire door inspections.
On 1 October 2020 the landlord asked the resident to confirm why she believed that officer X was not qualified.
On 2 October 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord should be aware of the qualifications needed to carry out a fire door survey.
2. The landlord should have checked officer X’s qualifications prior to instructing them to complete the fire door survey.
3. She disputed that the survey of each door took 15 minutes.
4. The landlord’s intention to carry out the works, due to costs and the Covid-19 pandemic, had caused “much distress”.
5. The landlord had ignored previous FRAs recommendations to make adjustments to the doors.
On the same day the landlord responded. In summary the landlord said:
1. The contract for the work had not yet been awarded.
2. It had taken on board all residents’ comments and it was liaising with senior colleagues to agree a way forward.
3. It would like to understand why the resident did not believe that officer X was appropriately qualified. The landlord noted that the resident had suggested that officer X had lied about his qualifications.
4. It had seen evidence of officer X’s qualifications.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence dated 19 September 2020 at stage one of its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that notification of the works to replace the doors had caused residents distress, which was not its intention.
2. Its motivation for proposing the works was to comply with fire safety regulations and to keep residents safe.
3. It acknowledged that “historically [it had] not responded to the recommendations in FRAs in a consistent manner and that the recommendations themselves [had] been inconsistent in previous years”.
4. The remit of the FRA did not include a thorough inspection of each door.
5. The 2018 FRA recommended that it carry out a full audit of all doors and the assessor could not determine if the doors met the required standard.
6. It carried out a full inspection of all doors in February 2019 which revealed that the doors did not meet the required standards. The landlord confirmed that it therefore took the decision to replace all of the doors and frames.
7. In early 2019 “the fire door industry” was experiencing delays in manufacturing compliant fire doors and it did not want to start the process of renewing the doors until the issue was resolved. The landlord added that it was “also very conscious of the level of funds available in [the reserve fund] and wanted to understand the year end position for 2019/20 before [it] began any consultation with residents”.
8. It understood that the resident’s “resistance” to the replacement doors was based upon the findings of the door inspections carried out by officer X. The landlord noted that it was believed that the inspections were not carried out in the correct manner or not at all.
9. It had seen the evidence of all of the surveys and it had “no reason to believe that they were not carried out in a thorough manner, in accordance with prescribed fire door inspection routine”.
10. Taking into account the resident’s concerns regarding the inspection and in order to move forward it proposed to carry out a new door survey by an independent qualified fire engineer. The landlord confirmed that it was considering some companies and it would provide residents with details of a couple of companies to choose from. The landlord confirmed that it would fund the inspection.
On 13 October 2020 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. It was “erroneous” of the landlord to suggest that her concerns were at stage one of its complaint procedure, after almost six months of raising concerns.
2. The landlord’s position that it wanted to replace the doors to keep residents safe contradicted with its historical approach to carrying out recommendations following a FRA.
3. The recommendations from the FRA were consistent as they recommended adjustments to the doors – the fitting of intumescent seals. The resident stated that the only inconsistent recommendation was following the fire door survey which recommended door replacement.
4. Had the landlord fitted intumescent seals to the doors following previous FRAs, the doors would not have been highlighted as an issue.
5. She disputed that lack of funds was the reason the landlord had not carried out the recommendations of previous FRAs. The resident stated that the reserve fund always had sufficient funds to cover the installation of intumescent seals.
6. The fire door survey completed in February 2019 was not independent and officer X did not have the relevant qualifications to complete the audit. The resident stated that the landlord had not demonstrated that officer X was appropriately qualified. The resident added that her own enquiries had found that officer X had lied regarding their qualifications on public internet domains. The resident confirmed that the “disputed discredited claims” were:
  1. Officer X was not a member of RICS or CIOB.
  2. Officer X did not hold a first-class degree in building surveying and property management, they had only obtained a NHC.
  3. Officer X did not hold a Diploma in Fire Inspection which was required to undertake a fire door survey.
7. The landlord was in breach of the Section 20 Notice in relation to the works to replace the doors, as the landlord did not notify residents of the works immediately after the fire door survey was completed. The resident added that the Section 20 Notice should have been given prior to the Covid-19 lockdown in order to allow residents to meet to discuss the proposal.
8. She disputed that there were delays in the fire door industry in early 2019 in relation to the manufacture of doors. The resident noted that the delays were “refuted by a number of manufacturers and building industry professionals”. The resident cited an article from the Building Index to support her view.
9. The majority of residents objected to the door replacement works based upon their experience of the inspection completed by officer X. The resident explained that the inspection of the property’s door took “less than five minutes” to complete and officer X had no tools or checklist with them, and they did not unscrew any hinges. The resident said that it was inappropriate that the landlord had dismissed residents’ accounts of the survey.
10. The landlord was acting in “an intimidating and bullying manner” in order to progress the works to replace the doors.
11. There were insufficient funds in the reserve fund to cover the door replacement works.
12. The photographs which the landlord provided of new doors in another development was misleading as they were “upgraded” doors.
The resident concluded by confirming that the landlord had not resolved the complaint. The resident however noted that residents were willing to accept the landlord’s proposal to pay for another inspection but stated that they wanted to select the company used.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. There had been ongoing communication between itself and the resident dating back to May 2020 when the first Section 20 Notice was issued. The landlord explained that while there were “strong objections to the proposal to install new fire doors sets” they were treated as observations rather than a complaint. The landlord noted that there was no reference to a complaint until September 2020 when the resident wrote to the CEO.
2. In recent years it had made “significant improvements and changes to the way in which [it approached] fire safety, including FRAs”.
3. The FRAs from both 2018 and 2019 recommended a full audit of all of the flat doors and to add intumescent back cold smoke seals and hydraulic overhead closers.
4. Officer X carried out a full door audit in February 2019 and found that all doors failed on numerous components “meaning that installing closer and seals alone would not ensure that they met the required 30-minute protection rating”. The landlord confirmed that it was therefore its opinion that the full door set would need to be replaced.
5. It believed that officer X was “suitably qualified” to carry out the fire door survey, having received fire door inspection training and being a qualified building surveyor with a first-class Batchelor of science degree in building Surveying and property management and a Higher Nation Certificate (HNC) in Building studies. The landlord confirmed that it had seen copies of these qualifications.
6. In its letter to residents dated 11 September 2020 it stated that officer X was “an associate member of RICS and CIOB”. The landlord confirmed that both of these memberships were obtained during his employment with it, however both of these memberships had “lapsed in recent years” as they were not a requirement of officer X’s current role. The landlord apologised for the misinformation, advising that it did not intend to deliberately mislead with this information. The landlord noted that neither of these memberships were required to carry out a fire door survey. The landlord confirmed that officer X had updated their public profiles.
7. It had listened to the resident’s feedback regarding the audit, and it did not want to enter into a protracted process of contesting allegations about the audit and therefore it had agreed to fund a further survey by a Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS) certified company. The landlord stated that it would not allow residents to choose the company to complete the survey however it would provide them with a choice of four companies.
8. It was confident that it could carry out the works safely during the Covid-19 pandemic.
9. The landlord confirmed that the photograph it had provided on 11 September 2020 was of a door which had recently been installed to give an indication of how new doors would look.
10. In February 2019 when the fire door survey was completed it was aware that the balance of the reserve fund was insufficient to cover the cost of the replacement doors and there were issues with manufacturing of fire doors. The landlord confirmed that it therefore made the decision to wait until the next financial year before starting consultation with residents regarding the proposed works. The landlord confirmed that by May 2020 it had “a good understanding of the level of funds available” and therefore began the consultation process at that time.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it did not uphold the complaint as it had acted “in good faith” at all times. The landlord noted that the complaint had however highlighted some learning which it would take forward including its approach to fire door audits. The landlord also confirmed that it had withdrawn the tender and notified all contactors who had submitted a bid that the works were not required at that time.
On receipt of the landlord’s final response the resident provided her comments. In summary the resident said:
1. Her concerns should have been registered as a complaint at a much earlier time.
2. The landlord had ignored recommendations from previous FRAs in relation to the doors.
3. The FRA undertaken in 2020 had not recommended replacement of the doors.
4. Residents disputed that officer X had undertaken a proper audit of the doors.
5. She disputed that officer X had been truthful about their qualifications.
6. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord wished to carry out the works to replace the doors during the Covid-19 pandemic.
7. The landlord had intentionally delayed in issuing the Section 20 Notice for the works.
8. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord would not allow residents to choose the company to complete the new fire door survey.
9. She would refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it had failed to complete recommendations following fire risk assessments

The Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (the Order) sets out that the responsible person for multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment “regularly” in communal areas, making sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire. The evidence shows that since 2015 the landlord has been undertaking regular FRAs of the building to identify risks.
In responding to the resident’s concerns regarding previous FRAs the landlord acknowledged that it had not actioned various recommendations made. The landlord explained that it had not done so due to “finances” and because the recommendations had been “inconsistent in previous years”.
Within its complaint correspondence the landlord confirmed that its approach to FRAs had changed as it had become more proactive. The Ombudsman can see that following the FRA in 2018 the landlord has taken steps to improve its response to FRAs as it is seeking to progress the recommendation in relation to the doors – to be discussed in the following section. This is appropriate.
As part of this assessment the Ombudsman will not consider why the landlord did not take steps to implement the recommendations following the earlier FRAs, and prior to 2018. This is because these FRAs are historic and have been superseded, and it is therefore increasingly difficult for the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken by the landlord at that time, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence. Further the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s failure to carry out the recommendations would have resulted in the landlord determining that door replacement was not necessary in 2019.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will consider if the landlord has taken steps to put things right. While it is appropriate that the landlord has modified its approach to FRAs and is seeking to implement recommendations, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord offered the resident an apology in respect of its failing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion an apology was necessary to acknowledge that the landlord recognised that there had been a service failure, and to also acknowledge that the failing will have resulted in a breakdown in trust between the parties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its proposal to replace the front door of all properties within the building she owns a property in

The FRA dated April 2018 set out “could not confirm the fire integrity of individual flat doors – the sample of doors inspected did not have intumescent backed cold smoke seals – the closers are Perko closers and one sample door had a missing Perko closer – carry out a full audit of the condition of all the flat doors, add intumescence cold smoke seals and hydraulic over-head closers to ensure the fire integrity of individual flats”. The action was recorded as “medium term” with a due date of 12 May 2018.
In response to the recommendation the evidence shows that the landlord undertook a fire door survey on 21 February 2019. While it was appropriate that the landlord completed a fire door survey, it is not clear why the landlord delayed in undertaking the survey and it was completed approximately nine months after the due date. This is unsatisfactory.
The landlord has provided a copy of its record documenting the fire door survey. The Ombudsman notes that the survey covered 11 “components” including “fire and smoke seals”, “hinges”, “door closer”, “other ironmongery”, “gap between the wall and the frame behind the architrave” and “threshold seals”. The report following the survey concluded:
1. “These flat entrance fire doors and frames in some form or other are in poor condition and not fit for purpose.
2. The doors are retrospectively fitted to old door frames seriously compromising the door and frames performance in a fire situation.
3. There is sufficient evidence to support that these doors should be replaced with BWF-CRTFIRE approved and tested fire door sets…”
Based on the report following the fire door survey, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision that all doors required replacement rather than adjustment was reasonable. This takes into account:
1. The Government’s “Advice for Building Owners of Multi-Storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings” states that “responsible persons should aim to replace existing flat entrance door sets if they suspect they do not meet the fire of smoke resistance performance…”
2. The fire door survey was an in-depth assessment of the doors whereas the FRA was not.
The landlord as the building’s responsible person is required to identify a competent person to complete fire door surveys. The Ombudsman understands that the competent person must have the relevant expertise to be able to implement or advise on key areas. The Ombudsman has not identified any specific criteria the competent person must meet.
As part of her complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the fire door survey, including that officer X was not qualified to complete the survey, officer X had lied about their qualifications and the survey was a cursory glance rather than an in-depth inspection.
Paragraph 39(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern terms of employment or other personnel issues”. In accordance with this provision the Ombudsman cannot comment on an individual’s term of employment or verify the qualifications of a landlord’s employee, as this relates to their terms of employment. In responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman must therefore consider if the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the survey and officer X was reasonable, and appropriate, in the circumstances.
In responding to the resident’s concerns the landlord’s position was:
1. The record of the fire door survey demonstrated that an appropriate assessment had been undertaken to verify the status of the doors, covering all necessary components.
2. It had seen evidence that officer X held a first-class Batchelor of science degree in building Surveying and property management, and a HNC in Building Studies.
3. It apologised that out-of-date information had been given in relation to officer X’s membership with RICS and CIOB, explaining that their membership had not been renewed as it was not required for their current role.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, based on the above, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the fire door survey which was completed was reliable and could be used to inform its decision making.
To allay the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding the findings of the fire door survey, the landlord confirmed that it would commission a new survey by an FDIS certificated company, with the residents choosing from a choice of four companies it had sourced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable response to the resident’s on-going concerns, in order to get a second opinion and to bring the matter to a close. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s decision to refuse to allow residents to choose their own surveyor for the new survey was unreasonable. This is because the landlord is the responsible person for the building and therefore must retain ultimate control of decisions relating to it. In addition the landlord confirmed that the companies put forward to residents would all be FDIS certified.
The Ombudsman notes that the FRAs dated April 2019 and April 2020 made the following finding in relation to the doors within the building – are all doors where required, a minimum of FD30s standard and found to be in a reasonable condition – no. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this further supports that the landlord’s course of action to take steps to replace the fire doors in the building was reasonable.
Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) a landlord is required to consult with a leaseholder before it carries out work which will cost any the leaseholder more than £250, including repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building and estate their property is situated.
As the landlord identified that the works to replace the doors within the building would result in a charge to residents of more than £250 it was appropriate that the landlord engaged the Section 20 procedure. The Ombudsman notes that it is the resident’s view that the landlord delayed in commencing the Section 20 procedure, as it did not so immediately following the fire door survey. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman has not identified a failing by the landlord in respect of its adherence to the Section 20 procedure. This is because the evidence shows that the landlord stated the process prior to making a charge to the residents for the works, as it was required to do, and it also invited residents to make observations on the works. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord has taken into consideration the resident’s comments on the works to replace the doors, as it has agreed to undertake a further fire door survey.
The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord has provided an explanation to the resident to explain why it did not commence the Section 20 process immediately following the fire door survey, as detailed in paragraphs 37(g) and 40(j). In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate that the landlord explained the delay in commencing the work, taking into account the balance of the reserve fund and its understanding of the manufacturing of fire doors.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident has suggested that the landlord’s handling of her complaint was unsatisfactory as it delayed in registering her concerns regarding the works to replace the door as a formal complaint.
From a review of the chronology of the case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s complaint handling was satisfactory. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns, as raised within her correspondence between 22 May 2020 and 17 September 2020, informally and as part of the Section 20 procedure as she began raising her concerns in response to the first Section 20 Notice.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident’s correspondence dated 19 September 2020 was the resident’s first request for a formal response addressing her concerns regarding the landlord’s decision to replace the doors in the building.
As part of her complaint the resident states that the landlord has acted in an intimidating manner in relation to the works. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman has found no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s approach to the works has been heavy handed or inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that it had failed to complete recommendations following fire risk assessments.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding its proposal to replace the front doors of all properties within the building she owns a property.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it had failed to complete recommendations following fire risk assessments

In responding to the resident’s concerns regarding previous FRAs the landlord acknowledged that it had not actioned various recommendations made. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failing in this regard, it is unsatisfactory that the landlord did not apologise to the resident to acknowledge the failing and that it would have resulted in a breakdown in trust between the parties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its proposal to replace the front door of all properties within the building she owns a property

The landlord’s proposal to replace the front doors of all properties within the building was reasonable as its proposal was informed following a fire door survey, as recommended by the FRA dated 2018. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did delay in completing the fire door survey, however does not consider that it amounts to a service failure in the circumstances.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, based on the above, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the fire door survey which was completed was reliable and could be used to inform its decision making as:
1. The record of the fire door survey demonstrated that an appropriate assessment had been undertaken to verify the status of the doors, covering all necessary components.
2. It had seen evidence that officer X held a first-class Batchelor of science degree in building Surveying and property management, and a HNC in Building Studies.
To allay the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding the findings of the fire door survey the landlord confirmed that it would commission a new survey by an FDIS certificated company. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s on-going concerns, in order to get a second opinion and to bring the matter to a close.
As the landlord identified that the works to replace the doors within the building would result in a charge to residents of more than £250 it was appropriate that the landlord engaged the Section 20 procedure. The landlord provided an explanation to the resident to explain why it did not commence the Section 20 process immediately following the fire door survey.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It was reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns, as raised within her correspondence between 22 May 2020 and 17 September 2020, informally and as part of the Section 20 procedure as she began raising her concerns in response to the first Section 20 Notice. It was not until 19 September 2020 that the resident requested a formal response addressing her concerns regarding the landlord’s decision to replace the doors in the building.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident to apologise that its approach to addressing recommendations following FRAs historically was unsatisfactory. Within the letter the landlord should provide an explanation detailing the steps that it has taken to improve its response to FRAs including managing and implementing recommendations made. The landlord should comply with the order within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord has confirmed that it has not taken steps to progress the new fire door survey as it is waiting the outcome of this determination. The landlord should now take steps to progress the new survey in order to bring the matter to a close. The landlord should update this service on the outcome of the survey once completed.