Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202204736)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204736

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

6 September 2023

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 handling of:
1. Breakdowns of the communal lifts;
2. The resident’s reports of a leak;
3. Fire safety concerns;
4. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his wife were tenants of a 9th floor flat, owned by the landlord who is a housing association. The tenancy was in the resident’s sole name and began January 2014. The couple live with their 3 children. They moved away from the property in January 2023.
The block housing their former flat has 18 floors with 116 flats in total. It has 2 lifts and a single staircase.
There were no household vulnerabilities noted by the landlord or resident.

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the Ombudsman scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The resident brought their complaint to the landlord in August 2021, however one of their concerns related to how the landlord handled the fire safety of the block. The landlord has provided information to this Service that it became aware of fire risks from the external structure of the building in November 2019. Considering the significance of this development to the landlord’s handling of fire related risks, it was considered reasonable to focus on the period November 2019 onwards. This period is deemed appropriate and fair in these circumstances.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the issues subject of this report had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of their household. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Summary of events

The landlord advised this Service that it identified potential fire risks from the make-up of the building’s external structure in November 2019. It arranged in response for intrusive investigation and put in place all hours monitoring of communal areas by an external security service.
On 8 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained it was investigating the cladding and installation to the building and gave an update about the security service. An internal briefing was also issued to its staff.
The landlord’s external consultant gave feedback in December 2019 following an intrusive inspection. Their findings gave rise to concerns about the combustibility of the building’s cladding and insulation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 December 2019 to advise its initial findings were that the cladding may not meet required standards. It promised to improve fire safety measures and gave advice about the evacuation strategy.
A communal temporary fire alarm system was installed on 14 December 2019 and additional alarms in common areas. This was noted by the landlord to support a full evacuation strategy pending further upgrades.
The landlord’s records show it updated the fire and rescue service of the updated risk and measures taken on 16 December 2019. The landlord relayed their response internally including advice to brief its ‘waking watch’ to its duties, complete person-centred risk assessments and evacuation plans.
The following further fire safety actions were noted by the landlord in December 2019:
1. It met with a lift specialist who advised it did not have a firefighting lift due to the lack of effective override control and design of the doors.
2. Checks of the sprinkler and fire alarm system were acceptable.
3. It was carrying out repairs to doors and upgrades. Its records showed firestopping improvements to internal communal doors.
4. It installed a new fire information box.
The landlord’s records of block inspections, advised as conducted weekly, cover mid-December 2019 to end of September 2020. Only one check was recorded in February 2020 with no copy of the report provided. The majority of inspections found no issues of concern, however a number noted issues in communal areas:
1. The lift was out of use on dates in January, May, July, and September 2020
2. Bulky items were highlighted for removal
3. Lighting defects to communal spaces
4. Degrading and peeling fireproof seals
5. Insecure and broken access door
6. Fire signage issues
7. Electrical wiring risks/ potential tampering.
Between 3 and 7 February 2020, the landlord conducted a resident engagement project with the aim of obtaining an accurate picture of households in occupation and completing identification checks to support an upgrade to the security system. It also planned to complete resident evacuation plans, conduct electrical testing, and inspect each flat entrance door.
In early 2020 the landlord replaced and upgraded communal landing lights to motion sensor LED fittings.
The landlord’s external specialist report in March 2020, confirmed the previously noted issues with the building’s cladding and insulation from its inspection in January 2020. The landlord subsequently conducted further investigations with a view to a legal claim, the contents of which are protected by legal privilege.
An electrical installation condition report was completed of the communal supply on 1 May 2020. The result was a satisfactory finding; however, 5 improvements were recommended including to circuiting accessories.
On 27 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident updating that it had upgraded the fire alarm system, the security access and cctv system, repaired entrance and exit doors and improved lighting.
On 24 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it would be replacing the fire alarm system. It informed the resident about the updated evacuation policy with guidance. It advised of the ongoing interim measures of a waking watch, weekly monitoring checks and regular fire safety testing and checks. It warned of a ‘zero tolerance’ policy concerning fire risk items in shared and communal areas.
A further external specialist reported to the landlord in September 2020, of fire protection issues arising from the external wall construction of the block. This was due to the combustibility of the cladding and internal wall structures.
On 26 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It updated the cladding and wall installations did not meet building standards and it had started arranging for their removal and replacement. It explained being unable to provide a timescale but expected to begin in 2021. It provided a reminder and update of interim safety measures and the importance of compliance with the policy.
The landlord received a further specialist report in December 2020. This said the external wall had combustible features and presented a fire spread risk.
Across 2020, the landlord’s contractor completed firestopping works across the communal areas in the block. This largely comprised of fire penetration sealing and the removal of non-fire rated materials.
On 9 February 2021, the landlord’s contractor completed an inspection of the smoke ventilation system. This found the system would operate satisfactorily under normal circumstances, however, was not compliant with current specifications. An upgrade to the system was recommended.
On 8 March 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident that said it was in contact with the flat’s original building contractors about work to the external wall structure. It did not yet have a timeframe. It updated that the lifts would be replaced in April 2021 due to their age and the occurrence of more regular break downs.
The landlord’s fire and electrical compliance contractor completed works to the fire detection, alarm, and response systems early March 2021. Its records noted being unable to fully complete testing of the alarm upgrade.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord updated the resident by letter that from 17 May 2021 it was working with a new safety contractor with a ‘robust fire safety procedure’. It gave advice about the evacuation strategy.
On 1 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update about its liaison with the building’s contractor. It said it hoped to be on site for remedial works by the end of 2021. It gave a reminder of interim safety measures.
The landlord’s records show between June and August 2021, it received reports of leaks in the flat above from the resident. At the end of July, the landlord logged a repair for a leak from pipes underneath the floor of the flat above. On the morning of 11 August 2021, it recorded an emergency job for a burst pipe below the flooring of the above resident’s flat but noted failed access for repair.
The resident told this Service on the evening of 11 August 2021, they informed the landlord of water dripping into their flat through the electrical fan installed on the kitchen ceiling. It was dripping directly into the kitchen area and cooking appliances. The landlord raised an emergency repair for water penetration into the electrics. It recorded ‘make safe’ work to the fan and checked the lighting. The resident’s understanding was that an electrician isolated the fan electrics.
The resident said that on or around 14 August 2021 the main front door and fire exit to the building became jammed shut. The broken door was reported to the landlord via its contact centre.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord was made aware by the resident’s neighbour who lived in the flat directly above of a leak. The landlord’s noted the need for investigation with a suspected cause being a leaking pipe.
The resident advised that on 17 August 2021, the fire alarms in the block sounded twice in the space of one and a half hours. The fire and rescue service attended the building. The resident supplied a video captured during their visit that showed a fire officer talking to a group of people assembled next to an entrance door, displaying an ‘out of order’ sign. The officer advised the situation concerning the door was serious and would be reported urgently. A warning was given that the building may have to be shut down and reference made to the Grenfell tower tragedy. A number of people shouted to the officer that the door had been reported to their landlord. The resident said the landlord fixed the door later that day. No records have been produced by the landlord.
On 18 August 2021, the landlord received a report of an uncontainable leak from the flat directly above the resident’s home. The job was given emergency priority. The resident shortly afterwards also reported water coming in through the electric fittings to their flat ceiling. The landlord recorded a ‘make safe’ job to a ‘heat alarm’ and spotlight due to a spreading leak from the above flat.
The landlord has not supplied records of its calls with the resident on 18 August 2021. The resident advised that on this date:
1. They reported water coming through their lighting fixtures at 4.55am, the call lasted 7 mins and 28 seconds.
2. The resident’s wife called the landlord at 8.23am. They were informed it had not recorded their earlier call and the leak logged again.
3. The landlord suggested his wife did not have authority to discuss the matter.
4. The resident’s wife asked to make a complaint. She was informed it would not be logged as a formal complaint and promised a call from a manager within 24 hours. The resident recorded the call length as 50 mins and 51 seconds.
The resident reported to this Service that the leak spread across the living room ceiling over the following days. They requested updates from the landlord but were informed that as the leak was not coming from their flat, it would not disclose information about another resident’s repair(s).
The landlord’s repair records of 24 August 2021 referred to a job being raised concerning an ongoing from pipes under the floor of the flat above the resident.
The landlord’s lift records show in the 6 months leading up to and including August 2021:
1. It was called out due to issues with the functioning of the lift 21 times. This included multiple occasions of passengers trapped inside the lift and the assistance of fire and rescue service to support their escape.
2. The cause of the lift breakdowns was almost exclusively connected to issues with the system itself e.g., faults or new parts required.
3. It attended within emergency timeframes and was able to complete immediate repairs on some occasions. On others, the remedial work ran into the following day, leaving the lift out of service in the interim.
On 26 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord that said:
1. The block was unsafe and a health and safety hazard due to its poor condition and inadequate management of communal areas.
2. The block was a fire hazard. The fire alarms were defective and regularly falsely sounded including in the early hours of the morning, causing disruption from unnecessary evacuations. Their main and closest fire exit had been inaccessible despite their report.
3. The communal lifts were subject to break down multiple times a week.
4. The landlord had failed to appropriately respond to their reports of a leak. Although reported on multiple occasions, it was ongoing and had spread. The landlord poorly handled communication on the issue.
5. The landlord had failed to treat their expression of dissatisfaction and request to complain in line with its complaints process.
In their complaint, the resident described a significant impact to their household from the issues raised. The reported leak affected their ability to cook and enjoy their home and caused anxiety about damage to their belongings, electrical safety, and health. The frequent fire alarms were regularly upsetting and leading to severe panic for the potential risk to their young children. The lift break downs forced the resident’s wife to climb 9 flights of stairs while pregnant and with their baby and bags of shopping. They had to be rescued on multiple occasions by the fire and rescue service when the lift malfunctioned and trapped them inside.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said its reply would be given in 10 working days. It promised to keep them informed of progress.
On 29 August 2021, the landlord recorded an emergency report by the above flat of a leak. The attending operative found a leaking pipe. A replacement item was unavailable, so a ‘make safe’ job was completed by closing a valve.
On 30 August 2021, the landlord raised a job to isolate the resident’s lighting due to water leaking into their lounge. The job status was recorded as no access. There is no record of notice to the resident about the works intended or access arrangements.
On 7 September 2021, the resident’s councillor forwarded a copy of their letter of complaint to the landlord and highlighted their report of an ongoing leak.
On the following day the landlord provided an update about its contact with the original contractor to require remedial work to the building. It apologised for insufficient progress and provided assurance of ongoing safety measures.
On 14 September 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord raising dissatisfaction at the lack of contact about his complaint and delay against its promised timescale. He reminded the landlord of his ongoing living conditions.
On the same day, the landlord attended the above flat and inspected the floor. It noted being unable to carry out works as the resident explained they were not in a position to remove the flooring themself and needed their help.
On 15 September 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord raising the resident’s concern about the leak and the condition of the building.
On the following day the landlord logged a request for repair of a leak in the above flat. It attended on 22 September 2021 and recorded that it had repaired burst pipes.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s MP’s letter, stating it had considered this as a new complaint.
On 30 September 2021, the resident chased the landlord by email for contact on their complaint. The landlord replied on 1 October 2021 and apologised for its delay and lack of communication. It explained that internal departments were in touch, and it was aiming to provide its complaint response the next week.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord raised a works order request for reinstatement of the resident’s lighting and kitchen fan following the leak.
On 5 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction about the delay in receiving a reply and its complaint handling.
The landlord completed replacement of the right-hand, firefighting lift in the block in early October 2021.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord’s fire detection and alarm system was inspected and serviced. The inspection found the system as unsatisfactory due to a fault to the panel and non-compliant with fire safety requirements. A recommendation graded ‘high priority’ was recorded for remedial work.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with an update about remedial works to the building’s wall. It advised aiming for an outcome to discussions in 4 to 6 weeks.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord provided its response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It was sorry that its response was delayed. This was due to information gathering from different departments.
2. The block lift had been ‘abused for many years’. The lifts were in the process of being replaced by March 2022, with one lift now operational.
3. The leak from the above flat had been repaired. It was aiming to reinstate the light fitting and renew the smoke alarm and fan in the kitchen by 22 October 2021. It would aim to repaint the ceiling on or before 27 October 2021.
4. No fault on the system causing false alarms had been raised to the landlord or picked up by the building manager. If someone was triggering alarms, this could be anti-social behaviour.
5. It accepted its failure to arrange a call back from a manager. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
6. It was required to check authority for data protection reasons and did have the resident’s wife named on the account.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s home and replaced the extractor fan in the kitchen, noting it was damaged from the leak. It inspected the damage to the ceiling on 27 October 2021 and found staining from the leak.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP. It provided an apology for the time taken to repair the leak. It advised of planned remedial work by the end of the month. It said it had learnt lessons from the failed manager call back. It acknowledged refusing to communicate with the resident’s wife in error. The landlord separately emailed the resident to explain it had responded to their MP.
On 18 November 2021, the resident requested that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2. He raised the following points:
1. The landlord’s poor handling of the reported leak.
2. The landlord’s position about the fire alarm system was wrong. Evidence from the fire and rescue service of multiple false call outs was attached. The landlord did not fully investigate the fire safety issues faced by the block.
3. He was concerned about fire hazards and general fire safety in the building and wanted to know about the findings of recent investigations.
4. The landlord had unfairly and inappropriately placed blame on resident’s to explain issues with the lift.
5. The landlord delayed replying to their complaint and did not address all of the issues raised or the impact on his family.
On 22 and 24 November 2021 the landlord visited the resident’s flat and completed repair and redecoration work to make good the damage caused by the leak.
On 27 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting acknowledgement of their escalation request. The landlord provided this on 1 December 2021 and confirmed a response was due in 15 working days.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord updated the resident it continued to be in discussion with original builders of the flat about work to the walls. It was now hoping for their response in early January 2022.
An internal email by the landlord on 20 December 2021 made reference to a fault on the fire alarm panel due to missing devices from the installation. The landlord later noted repair awaiting parts and in early 2022 water ingress affecting some devices.
As at the end of 2021, in the 4 months following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord received a further 15 call out reports for lift breakdowns. This included further entrapment of persons requiring the involvement of fire and rescue services. The landlord attended promptly and ensured the lift was back in operation within emergency timescales.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 January 2022. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay responding to the complaint, this was due to compiling information from relevant departments.
2. It was replacing the lifts due to the low reliability of their operation. The first lift was complete and the second aimed for March 2022.
3. Its investigation found there had been some water ingress into a few devices causing a fault to show on the fire alarm panel. It was replacing those damaged. It said, ‘this does not imply that the rest of the system is malfunctioning’.
4. Its investigations showed the cladding system did not meet building regulations. It was in legal discussions to seek to agree remedial work.
5. It apologised for the issues experienced by the resident, recognised a long wait, and offered £100 compensation to reflect missing its service target.
The landlord’s stage 2 investigation records noted as lessons learned that it must communicate between departments more efficiently and make tenants aware of any upgrades to communal areas and lifts.
The landlord was asked to supply records of its testing of fire safety detection, response and fighting equipment and systems for the period under investigation. The evidence provided noted:
1. There was minor delay to its 6 monthly automatic fire detection system testing. Weekly checks of the automatic fire detection in 2020 were usually carried out on time, however on 3 occasions, testing was delayed by a few weeks.
2. Servicing of the automatic opening vents was completed 2 months late. This was outside of the 6 monthly timescale. Testing of the vents’ operation in the event of fire was due 3 monthly, however from mid-2021 there was a delay of 5 months and again at the end of 2021/ beginning 2022.
3. There were significant gaps in servicing and inspection of the building’s sprinkler and wet riser (water supply) firefighting systems.
4. Emergency light annual and monthly testing was completed in line with required timescales.
5. No record of fire door inspections during the period of investigation.
6. Gaps in testing of the smoke extract system.
7. There was no evidence of quarterly servicing of either lift or monthly testing of the firefighting lift. Monthly testing of the other passenger lift was noted, however its 6 monthly inspection was delayed by 5 months in 2021.
The landlord provided evidence that an electrical installation condition report was completed for the resident’s flat in 2018. No copy report was provided.
The landlord’s external fire risk assessors completed a formal fire risk assessment on 10 January 2022, further to an inspection on 2 December 2021. It made numerous findings of existing risks requiring ‘timely’ remedial action:
1. Matters carrying intolerable risks; imminent risk of significant harm requiring immediate action:
  1. The fire alarm panel had 2 disablements.
  2. The landlord failed to provide evidence of personalised evacuation plans.
  3. The lack of evidence the waking watch service was suitably trained.
2. Issues presenting as risks for which action should be undertaken urgently:
  1. There were high priority remedial actions outstanding from checks and findings made October 2021, to the operation of the emergency lighting system, fire alarm and smoke ventilation systems.
  1. Most of the fire doors had significant issues likely to impair performance under fire conditions and there were considerable defects noted to flat doors from its random check. It recommended a full door survey.
  2. The landlord had been unable to produce records of weekly testing of the fire alarm or sprinkler system. It highlighted concern the wet riser system did not appear to have undergone inspection since February 2020 or the lifts subject to regular maintenance or testing.
  3. A staff member present for caretaking duties at the building confirmed they had been given no fire safety training or had a site induction.

Post-complaint

The landlord’s record of remedial steps to respond to the findings of the fire risk assessment issued January 2022 noted:
1. The majority of actions are recorded as resolved.
2. A number of items were logged as ‘superseded by new fire risk assessment with same task finding’; the wall structure, door inspections, safety signage, testing of the smoke ventilation system and lifts and recommendations of the electrical installation condition report.
3. The landlord noted a door survey was conducted, date unknown. It separate records logged a fire door inspection in February 2023.
4. It recorded no result against concerns of the testing and inspection of the sprinkler system, wet riser, smoke ventilation.
5. It stated the waking watch regularly monitored the lifts.
6. The person on site referred to as a ‘caretaker’ was a contracted cleaner, trained by the contractor company. It noted ‘all concerned informed of the building strategy and expectation’.
The landlord sent letters to the resident in February, March, May, June, July, August, October and November 2022 with updates about the steps it was taking to reach a position about the remedial work needed to the external wall of the block. As time progressed, it explained that due to disputes concerning liability, the matter had become more complex.
The landlord’s recorded call out numbers for lift breakdowns increased across 2022 compared to 2021. Emergency services were further involved in rescuing persons trapped inside. The landlord continued to complete emergency repairs. Issues with the operation of the lifts are noted on records as recent as March 2023. The landlord’s all residents letter of October 2022 apologised for lift breakdowns and poor service. It advised resident’s it sought to rebuild trust and would work with its lift contractor to ensure both lifts were working properly.
The resident reported to the landlord the fire and rescue services attending due to a false alarm. The landlord’s records show it diagnosed the issue as linked to water saturation and a damaged cable. Remedial work was noted and a full upgrade to the alarm system completed in October 2022.
The landlord continued negotiations with the support of its legal advisors concerning the work required to reduce the combustible elements found to the external wall structure. It obtained further expert reports to inform its position, including that of a fire engineer in March 2022. The fire engineer identified numerous issues presenting fire risks. It advised defects be remediated to provide an acceptable level of health and safety to those in the building. An instantaneous evacuation strategy and waking watch were recommended mitigations.
The resident and his family moved out of the flat in January 2023 after handing in their notice to quit.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2023 following a request for information from the Ombudsman. It offered the resident increased compensation of £350 to recognise complaint response delays, lack of depth to the replies, failure to review its offer at stage 2 or acknowledge the impact to the resident’s household from false alarms. The resident replied raising issue that the landlord had failed to fully address his complaint, including its handling of the leak. The landlord replied with an offer to log the leak issue as a new complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord is required by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 as the person responsible for premises to carry out a fire risk assessment focusing on safety of persons in the case of fire. The assessment should identify any risks to be removed or reduced and relevant precautions needed. The Order also requires that facilities and equipment impacting fire risk are appropriately maintained in working order and good repair.
The landlord’s fire safety policy in force between February 2020 to December 2021 required it to ensure appropriate fire safety management systems and procedures were monitored. This included the testing and planned maintenance of fire safety equipment, devices, alarms and extinguishing systems. Its fire safety policy from December 2021 was more detailed than the previous version and specified the importance of maintaining reportable and suitable records concerning maintenance of its fire safety systems, repairs, equipment and testing. It considered inspection of equipment including the need for fire doors to be inspected at regular intervals as per its fire risk assessment. It required appropriate induction training, signage and internal communications.
Supplementary fire safety operational guidance set out the response expectations on receipt of recommended remediation action following a fire risk assessment or faults to fire detection and suppression systems. It also detailed its testing, inspection and maintenance regimes including for fire doors.
The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in repair the structure and in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply and heating of water, electricity and sanitation. This mirrored its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time. A landlord is also required to make good damage caused to decoration from the landlord’s failure to do repairs or the repair work itself.
The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement from 20 March 2020 that the landlord must ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout the tenancy. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm and include damp, high moisture, hygiene risks and fire hazards. The obligation extends to common or shared areas. Relevant case law has held that a property is not reasonably fit for habitation if the state of repair means an occupier might be injured or experience injury to health as a result of their ordinary use of the property.
The landlord’s maintenance policy set service timescales for expected timeframes for its response to a repair issue:
1. Emergency repairs. A response time of 4 hours and rectification (this may be ‘make safe’ pending further repair) in 24 hours. Examples include burst pipes and flooding.
2. Non-emergency repairs to be completed within 15 working days.
It was required to look at timescales against the needs of vulnerable occupants, including children under 3, and the severity of the situation to consider if greater priority was needed. The policy also requires it to confirm appointments before attending and keep customers informed of progress.
The landlord was responsible by law for maintaining and ensuring its communal lifts operated safely. The landlord’s lift policy required:
1. Thorough examination of the lift by a competent person at least every 6 months unless other frequency is recommended by a competent person.
2. Further maintenance and inspection at frequency taking into account a number of factors, including recommendations from examinations and risk assessments.
3. The keeping of records of current and previous thorough examination records for the past 3 years.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint required that it:
1. provided regular updates
2. acknowledged a complaint/ escalation request within 3 working days
3. stage 1 response within 10 days of receipt of complaint
4. stage 2 response within 15 days of receipt of the escalation request.
The landlord’s then compensation policy guided it to consider compensation where it had found service failure and its customer had either incurred financial loss or inconvenience. It required reflection on the personal impact to its customer.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, then in force, said landlord’s should ensure their complaint investigations were fair. In doing so, it required complaints officers to act with independence and an open mind and take measures to address actual or perceived conflict of interest.

The landlord’s handling of breakdowns of the communal lifts

It is evident the lifts servicing access to the resident’s home were subject to repeat break down at regular frequency. The landlord’s data, its own internal reflections and its letter to resident’s in March 2021 acknowledged poor reliability.
The landlord’s records show it attended promptly to seek to bring the lift(s) back into operation. There were times it was unable to do so immediately in circumstances that were reasonable. For example, when replacement parts were needed. However, repairs were completed by the end of the following day. The repair records show the landlord appropriately prioritised repairs to bring the lifts back into service in line with its repairing obligations. It is further evident it appropriately reflected upon the frequent breakdowns to identify the need for improvement and committed to a programme of replacement to seek to bring an end to the pattern of breakdowns.
While the landlord’s completion of repairs was reasonable, there is limited evidence of regard to the impact of breakdowns, outages, and trappings to the resident. It was a reasonably foreseeable consequence that breakdowns, outages and trappings would cause anxiety, frustration and potential risks. It is reasonable to expect consideration of the resident’s experience by updated information about the issue, assurances and offers of support as required. It is further reasonable to assume the landlord considered associated risks to households with vulnerabilities potentially impacted by lift outages and any mitigation measures required. Apart from the letter of March 2021 advising residents of planned lift replacement, there is little evidence of attempts by the landlord to provide information or assurances. There was no communicated recognition of the likely disruption occurring to the lives of those living in the block or reminders/ information about support and help on offer in case of outage. There is no evidence that the landlord assessed and responded to the particular risks presenting to the resident’s household that included a heavily pregnant occupant and later with a new baby.
The landlord’s limited communication with the resident on a matter likely to cause significant disruption and instances of distress was unreasonable. It’s apparent lack of regard or assessment of the potential presenting risks arising from lift breakdowns and trappings was a service failure. It failed to identify, manage and assess the risk set out within its repairs policy.
The landlord’s complaint investigations failed to address the issues identified above or provide a proportionate remedy for the impact to the resident. At stage 1, despite being aware of breakdowns and the resident’s account of being stuck inside the lift, the landlord failed to acknowledge or provide any remedy, or an apology, for the detriment caused. While it provided details of its intended lift replacement, reflection upon the resident experience pending improvement would have been reasonable.
The only explanation or recognition offered by the landlord was that the lift had been ‘abused for many years’. This comment presented as being deflective of its repairing obligations. It was also inconsistent with its own records that showed a pattern of breakdowns arising largely due to system faults. This approach understandably exacerbated the dissatisfaction experienced by the resident and caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the lifts had low reliability. Although it offered £100 in appreciation of ‘issues’ experienced, it is not clear whether this was connected to the lift. It offered no specific recognition of any failing concerning the lifts or impact to the resident. It further failed to respond to the resident’s escalated concern about its characterisation of the breakdowns.
The landlord’s stage 2 investigation records noted lessons learned to make residents aware of any upgrades to communal lifts. It is appropriate that the landlord identified an improvement it could make to its service moving forward. This recognition was not presented within its response to the resident. Although it provided more transparent and specific recognition of service failing by its all residents letter October 2022, this acknowledgement was not within the resident’s relevant complaint. This Service has considered this apology, however noted it came 9 months after conclusion of the complaint which failed to appropriately address the issues and took no account of the detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint responses presented the resolution to the lift issues as its replacement of the lifts. Its records show lift breakdowns continued across 2022 at frequency and the number of call outs increased compared to 2021. This Service cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the lift issue was put right in line with its complaint response assurances before the resident moved out.
This Service noted the fire risk assessment of January 2022 raised concern the lifts did not appear to be subject to regular testing or maintenance. This Service has seen evidence of monthly lift testing, however some months were missed and there is evidence the 6 monthly compliance inspections were on occasions delayed. No records of the quarterly service have been provided. This raises issue as the landlord’s compliance with its lift policy. This is of concern in the context of frequent breakdowns and passenger entrapments in a high-density block, particularly one carrying high level fire risks. The landlord’s failure to either conduct frequent testing/ maintenance or keep accurate records of these activities shows a failure to meet its obligations and adhere to its lift policy.
The landlord produced records to this Service that suggests the weekly testing required by the fire risk assessment is conducted by its waking watch service. It is unclear that the waking watch fulfills the competent person requirements by its lift policy. This Service has insufficient details to be in a position to determine whether the landlord is now operating and recording testing and maintenance of its lifts in line with requirements.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the lift breakdowns. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the above assessed failings and pay compensation to acknowledge the distress these caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

The lack of detail within the records provided by the landlord prevent a clear understanding of whether and how the reports of a leak from June 2021 were linked to the leak under review. It is apparent from the records that the landlord was aware of leaking pipes above the resident’s flat at the end of July 2021. The full reasons for delay completing a repair to the leak is not evident from the landlord’s repair notes. While there are numerous jobs logged as an emergency, some are noted as cancelled. There is no evidence the length of time taken was the result of lack of access by the resident. While there is some reference to failed access, there is no record of the resident being given prior notice of attendance. Around the same time, the resident is observed to be repeatedly chasing the landlord for action and allowing access. Further, the resident from the flat above, is also noted to have repeatedly reported and chased progress to repair the source of the leak.
While the landlord assigned appropriate emergency priority to logged leak repairs, it completed only ‘make safe’ work to the electrics within emergency timescales. As the cause of the water escape continued and leaking spread over time, it cannot reasonably be concluded that even a complete ‘make safe’ repair was conducted. The effective containment and repair of water leaking into electrical fittings is reasonably a high priority and an emergency repair as recognised by the landlord’s repair policy. The repair or effective make safe of the leak was not however conducted within an emergency timescale of 24 hours. The cause of the leak took over a month to be repaired.
This delay was contrary to the landlord’s policy and unreasonable, with no evident mitigating factors to explain the full length of time the resident was awaiting remedial work. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to comply with its repairing obligation and requirements as to the health and safety of the resident’s living standards.
There is no evidence the landlord took account of the household circumstances as required by its maintenance policy, for example that there was a baby falling under its ‘vulnerable’ category. This required the landlord to consider whether the circumstances required additional priority to be given to the remedial work. Despite the resident reporting concerns about the potential impact to their 3 young children, there is no record the landlord reviewed this as relevant to its outstanding remedial work.
There is no evidence the landlord assessed the wider risk of the leak within the block, in the context of the significant risk factors known regarding fire safety. Given the reports reference water seeping through electrics which impacted a heat alarm, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord took its most strenuous efforts to ensure their completion. The interim safety of the resident and his young family was not shown to be given sufficient consideration by the landlord.
While the landlord confirmed completion of a repair in its stage 1 response, it did not acknowledge the delay experienced by the resident, any service failing or offer any form of remedy for the time it had taken to resolve the leak. Just over a week later in its letter to the resident’s MP, the landlord did provide an apology for its delay. It is unclear why its recognition of service delay was not addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 response or any reflection upon an appropriate associated remedy.
The landlord’s records show it was aware of a leak directly above the resident flat on multiple occasions but failed to assess the interim potential risk of impact to the resident’s flat or alert the resident. It is reasonably evident that an underfloor leak could cause water penetration and associated risks to the property below. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to complete timely checks of the resident’s flat for water penetration, ensure their home was safe and take any appropriate mitigation measures. This left the resident to discover water entering their home, adding to both their distress and inconvenience and time and trouble having to report the matter. The landlord’s lack of identification and assessment of potential risks to the resident’s household, as well as lack of notice were failures in its handling.
There is no evidence the landlord pro-actively sought to update the resident about its plans for repair or the steps it was taking to try identify the leak. The resident was informed a month after the leak was repaired within the landlord’s stage 1 response letter. This was despite the landlord being on notice from the resident of the day-to-day impact on his family. The resident was left living with the continued leak and its after effects for a period of over 2 months. Furthermore, they were left unclear as to when the matter would be fully resolved. The landlord’s records do not provide any explanation as to why the resident was not updated of its efforts to repair the leak. The resident’s evidence demonstrated they made efforts on a number of occasions to seek interim updates by the landlord that were refused. This is consistent with the landlord’s lack of consideration for the experience of the resident and a failure in the landlord’s communication.
The landlord accepted and apologised for its failure to arrange a repairs manager call back in its stage 1 reply. While it was appropriate the landlord offered recognition and apology, the landlord failed to identify or address its other communication failings. It addressed only one distinct issue of its communication and by doing so, missed an opportunity to provide a full response, remedy its failings or learn from these. It further failed to recognise it had mishandled its call with the resident’s wife and provided incorrect advice. While it later acknowledged this failing to the resident’s MP, it offered no updated remedy to the resident. The landlord’s poor handling of its communication with the resident added to the distress caused to the resident’s family.
It is of concern that the landlord has not produced records its calls with the resident and his wife. It is acknowledged calls occurred however there is no record provided. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence of relevant call logs or case management notes indicates poor record keeping.
The landlord failed to consider its handling of the resident’s reports of the leak within its stage 2 response, despite the resident specifically raising this in their escalation request. In doing so, it missed another opportunity to reflect fully upon its handling, learn or offer an appropriate remedy. This failure was exacerbated by its contact in February 2023 when it offered to log the matter as a new complaint and asked for further information about the leak already provided.
This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £100 to £600 where a maladministration finding is made and the landlord’s efforts to put matters right or address detriment caused were disproportionate. The failings in the landlord’s handling caused distress to the resident and their household over a period of several months. The resident was put to time and trouble from chasing reports and escalations due to the landlord’s poor handling. Accordingly, compensation is ordered at the highest end of this band.

The landlord’s handling of fire safety

During the period of investigation, the landlord provided regular and timely updates concerning its investigations into the external wall and its response. Its letters to the resident gave information about the mitigation and improvement measures it was taking, for example the updated evacuation strategy. It was also consistent in its communication about the importance of compliance with safety policies. However, some matters of fire safety were not covered or outlined with sufficient clarity. Although small in number, these were of importance in the circumstances.
The landlord described its concerns and later findings about risks from the wall structure with reference to the lack of compliance with regulations or standards. It is reasonable the landlord was careful to handle messaging so as not to cause undue alarm and that the picture only became clearer as testing continued. However, at no stage did the landlord explicitly outline to resident’s the factual risks arising from the combustibility of the wall structure. While this was a sensitive message to deliver, fuller disclosure of the risks presenting was important to help underline the purpose and importance of compliance with mitigation measures. The messaging did not present as easily accessible and transparent. Resident’s could not be reasonably expected to understand what the standards or regulations were. While the landlord clearly made proactive and repeat efforts to update the resident, its communications were too vague and therefore less effective. Indeed, the resident raised query in their complaint as to the risks presenting from the building but he was provided the same explanation as in its all resident’s letters that appeared as standard wording.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with details about how to contact its waking watch service when informing and reminding them of its presence. As the waking watch was in place as a vital mitigating measure, it was key that the resident was made aware of how to raise alarm or issue to the service and how it would operate and liaise with them in event of an alarm or emergency.
There was no evidence of communications provided by the landlord to address the impact of repeat false alarms. It is inevitable that a pattern of false alarms would contribute to evacuation complacency. This is of concern due to the building risks, with an immediate evacuation strategy. It is reasonable to anticipate that the landlord maintained regular communications to acknowledge the alarm defects but underline the vital importance of compliance. Despite the landlord’s records showing its awareness of false alarms, there is no evidence it considered the associated risks and any appropriate responsive communications.
The above failings in communication with the resident concerning fire safety display a lack of adherence to good practice transparency and risk management. Further, it showed a lack of appropriate regard to the experience of the resident who would reasonably need and want to understand the risks presenting to them from their home, what role those patrolling the block would play in helping them and the importance of treating each fire alarm as real.
Mindful of the building’s fire risk, it is reasonable to anticipate the landlord’s stringent compliance with its required sequence of testing, inspection and servicing of its fire detection, response and fighting equipment and systems. While the landlord supplied voluminous records of testing, repair and maintenance conducted during the period of investigation, its records showed delays and gaps in testing of crucial systems and equipment. Although some delays were minor e.g. occasional delays to fire detection testing, effective operation of these systems was crucial to preserve life in an at risk building. The frequency required by the landlord had regard to the risk of failing to spot operational issues. Other delays and gaps in servicing or testing were significantly outside of its required timescales, for example to automatic opening vents, sprinkler and wet riser systems and the lifts. This represented a failure by the landlord to adhere to its policy requirements, fire safety obligations and displayed an inconsistent approach to its management of fire risk.
The lack of evidence of fully compliant testing was raised by the landlord’s fire risk assessment from its inspection in December 2021. The landlord was on notice that its testing presented as inadequate and carried substantial risks for which action was recommended urgently. It is of concern that the subsequent records show a continuation of the same pattern with gaps arising.
A further key measure advised by the landlord to support its management of fire risk at the block was weekly inspections by its neighbourhood service. This Service has been unable to determine from the evidence provided that the required inspections were consistently conducted. The contents of the reports produced show the importance of their completion; inspections identified numerous issues that could present a fire risk. As a key responsive measure to manage risks from the high combustibility of the building’s structure, the absence of evidence of their completion represents a serious failure in the landlord’s handling.
The landlord was required in line with its fire safety obligations to make reasonable efforts to identify anyone who may need help to evacuate the building in the event of fire and develop with them a plan for their evacuation. This Service has seen records that the landlord intended to discuss these matters with all resident’s early February 2020. However, the landlord has been unable to produce any record that it took note of the resident’s household or conducted a visit. This is consistent with the risk identified by the fire risk assessment issued in January 2022 that highlighted a lack of evidence of such plans causing an ‘intolerable’ level of risk.
During the period of investigation, the resident’s household included a heavily pregnant person and latterly, a baby. The resident outlined in his complaint August 2021 that his wife had been struggling to manage the stairs. There is no evidence the landlord sought to identify the particular needs or potential evacuation difficulties that may have arisen in the resident’s household. This is a failure by the landlord to show regard to its fire safety requirements and to seek to identify their potential needs.
In consideration of the known presenting fire risks in the building, it is reasonable to consider that remedial work to fire safety related items would be given priority for completion. The landlord was noted to assess some repairs as urgent and completed in a timely manner e.g. the majority of lift breakdown repairs. However, other items impacting the overall fire safety systems were not resolved in a reasonable period of time and were given insufficient urgency.
An example is the fire alarm. Its inspection in October 2021 noted a panel fault requiring remedial work as a ‘high priority’, however the fire risk assessment noted this outstanding as of December 2021. Given the importance of a fully operational alarm system supporting a full evacuation strategy, any delay outside of urgent timescales was unreasonable due to the level of associated risk.
The resident provided evidence of a broken fire exit and access door. A defect causing lack of use of a main fire exit to the building was one requiring urgent priority. While the repair was completed swiftly after attendance by fire and rescue services, an intervening period of days was an unreasonable delay and carried considerable risk.
A number of inspection reports of fire safety systems found issues requiring remedial work or steps to be taken. Although the landlord responded to certain recommendations, other items were left outstanding over periods of some months. This Service cannot be satisfied the landlord gave sufficient urgency and resource to works and or further steps identified by its own inspections.
The up to date record of remedial steps taken by the landlord show a number of actions recommended by its fire risk assessment in January 2022 were still outstanding at the following assessment. While it is understood costly or complex improvements reasonably require time, it is unclear why measures such as appropriate testing of the ventilation system, inspection of doors and safety signage were not progressed with priority. This shows a pattern of failure to place adequate priority to the remedial work required or take full account of the level of risk presenting in the building when assessing work orders against other relevant factors including cost.
There are no records produced that show how the landlord managed the waking watch service implemented as a direct mitigation measure. While the service was provided by its contractor, this was on the landlord’s behalf and the landlord remained responsible to assure itself as to its compliance with fire safety requirements. There is limited evidence the landlord assessed the service on an ongoing basis against any operational requirements, or produced guidance specific to functioning of the watch. There is reference in the landlord’s records to internal concerns raised about watch operatives being asleep. However, there is no record of the subsequent remedial action or quality control measures taken. There is no evidence of the training provided or quality assurance checks for the landlord to be satisfied as to the competency of the operatives fulfilling important safety duties on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord’s records evidence advice given by the fire and rescue service in 2019 to ensure its waking watch service was adequately briefed as to its duties. The landlord’s fire risk assessment from December 2021 found its failure of evidenced quality control as an ‘intolerable’ level risk requiring immediate action. That the landlord was still unable to produce similar records over a year and a half later when requested by this Service is of serious concern. This is suggestive of either a lack of oversight and adequate control of the service or failure to maintain appropriate records on important safety matters.
This Service also noted the finding by the fire risk assessor in December 2021 that a person conducting duties on behalf of the landlord confirmed having had no fire safety training or site induction. While there was a misunderstanding as to the nature of their role, it is reasonable to expect any person carrying out duties within this particular building had been given basic fire safety training and was aware of the immediate evacuation strategy. This is further indication as to failings in the landlord’s quality assurance and management of contracted services.
The fire safety records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. Complete and accurate records would reasonably be expected with respect to a building that has features carrying heightened fire risk. While the landlord is noted to have produced dedicated records concerning many elements of its fire safety management, it acknowledged failing to retain certain related records.
It advised being unable to produce records from the tenancy audit of February 2020. This information gathering, assessment and testing exercise was noted as a key risk assessment and mitigation measure for each household and flat following notice of the combustibility of the building’s structure. The landlord notified this Service that these records were destroyed. It also reported being unable to source records of training provided to waking watch operatives. The landlord’s weekly block inspections were also a vital part of its risk control measures. It explained being unable to provide records of multiple inspections due to software related issues. There was various reference to records not made available for the fire risk assessment in December 2021. This also points to issues concerning the accessibility and retention of important fire safety related data.
The landlord’s engagement with fire and rescue services was a key component of its fire risk management and compliance with its obligations. It is evident from records considered that the landlord held meetings with the service, was subject to audits and liaised in accordance with its obligations, however it failed to produce associated records. It is of concern that the landlord was unable to produce dedicated records of its contact with the service given the importance this liaison played in its fire safety compliance.
The landlord is noted to have invested in multiple improvements to the building once becoming aware of the heightened risk arising from the wall structure. It demonstrated a clear effort and use of resources to improve physical features relating to fire safety. The delay to the removal and replacement of high-risk wall structures is understood to be a matter subject of ongoing negotiation. A period of over 3 years has passed since the landlord became aware of the high risk to the building. While it is understood that litigation can lead to significant delay, it is unclear if the landlord has risk-assessed other alternatives that could be pursued parallel to the legal route.
Although the resident raised concerns in their complaint as to the fire safety of the block, the landlord’s management and maintenance of communal areas and fire related risks, the landlord failed to investigate these matters or address in its response. It considered only the specific issue of cladding investigations and the false alarms. The stage 1 response showed a lack of thorough investigation and failed to have regard for the resident’s experience. It was only after the resident was put to time and trouble of obtaining and producing evidence of repeat attendances by fire and rescue service for false alarms that the landlord acknowledged an issue had arisen. It did not however take account of and seek to redress the detriment to the resident arising from the malfunctioning alarm.
The impact to the resident and his family of false alarms was reconsidered by the landlord in its February 2023 correspondence. It admitted previously failing to acknowledge the impact to the resident’s family and offered £150 compensation. While this showed an effort by the landlord to identify its failings and put matters right, this step was taken only after the involvement of this Service. It did not offer any apology for its previous failings or its previous failure to identify these. It did not address the wider fire safety issues raised by the resident.
Once the landlord was aware of potential risks arising from the wall structure of the resident’s home, it is reasonable to expect that its compliance with fire safety obligations, its policies and guidance and best practice safety management was at the highest possible standard. While it took steps to make improvements to the building and implemented mitigating measures, there were lapses in its interim risk management. It did not adhere fully to its testing, servicing and maintenance requirements of key safety systems or equipment. It unreasonably delayed or gave insufficient priority to completing remedial work to items impacting fire safety systems or actioning the recommendations of its own specialist inspections. There was a lack of evidenced quality assurance control of contracted service including its waking watch service that had a vital mitigation role against the increased risks. Although it communicated regular updates to the resident, its communications were vague, lacking detail and failed to cover important matters. There is no evidence the landlord acted in line with its fire safety requirement to seek to identify and assess the resident’s household’s needs. Further, important information relevant to its management of fire risk and evacuation controls was reported missing or unavailable.
These matters each in isolation were significant failures in service due to their contribution to the management of risk in a building identified as high risk. In totality, the series of failings unreasonably heightened the risk to the resident and his family. The landlord’s complaint response failed to acknowledge any fire safety related failing or associated impact to the resident. While the landlord belatedly offered compensation after being approached by this Service, it did not demonstrate insight into the failings identified above or take adequate steps to put matters right within its investigation of the complaint. Its belated compensation offer alone was an insufficient remedy to the serious matters identified by this report.
This Service finds severe maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failings. It is also required to take steps to seek to learn from the issues identified.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The records show the resident sought to escalate their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters in the call of 18 August 2021. The landlord later accepted on this date it had promised and failed to action a manager call back. The resident asserts they requested to make a complaint, instead offered a manager call. That the resident sought to raise a clear expression of dissatisfaction is apparent from the admission made.
While it is good practice for a landlord to seek to resolve matters of concerns as early as possible, a specific request to raise a complaint should be treated as such. The resident’s concerns were not logged and dealt with as a complaint in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident gave the landlord this earlier opportunity to review its handling of issues arising at their home. Instead, by referring the resident to a manager call back that never occurred, it prevented access to the formal complaint process at this stage and delayed consideration of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaint email of 26 August 2021. However, despite its stated promise in line with policy to keep the resident informed, the 10 working days deadline for response passed by without any update. The resident chased the landlord for contact, highlighting their living conditions. The resident’s MP raised the same concerns on their behalf. However, no update was given to the resident as to the progress of their complaint. When the resident chased again, the landlord promised a response by 15 October and gave an apology for lack of contact. The response was not issued in line with this updated timescale and there is no record of interim contact. It was issued nearly 2 months after the complaint was made. This delay was 30 working days outside of its policy timescale.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response accepted delay, for which it offered apology, there was no other form of redress offered. There was also no recognition as to its failure to keep the resident informed of progress, leading to the resident chasing contact, on occasion left unanswered. The landlord’s compensation policy suggested where failed service targets caused inconvenience, it would consider an offer. Although there was clear evidence of inconvenience caused by its own delay of nearly 2 months and poor communication, it failed to appropriately address its failure or consider against its relevant policy.
The pattern of delay and inadequate communication contrary to policy continued at stage 2. At this stage, the landlord failed to send to the resident an acknowledgement of their complaint until after the resident chased this. The landlord advised its response would be provided within 15 working days. The stage 2 reply was issued after 29 working days. No interim update on progress or a change to the policy timescale was given to the resident. Its handling of the complaint at stage 2 was not in compliance with its complaints policy.
As in the stage 1 response, the landlord did apologise for its delayed response. It made an offer of £100 to reflect service failures experienced. It is unclear if this included the complaint delay alongside other service issues. However, by stage 2, the resident had experienced an accumulated complaint delay of 1.5 months and repeat failings in communications. These failings and their impact to the resident who was put to time and trouble from having to chase progress and inconvenience from delay, should reasonably have been specifically addressed.
While the landlord did identify elements of its complaint handling failings within its correspondence of February 2023 and sought to acknowledge the impact to the resident, this was a significant period of time after conclusion of the complaint response. It was triggered only after the intervention of the Ombudsman. This belated offer did not fully identify or remedy the failings occurring up to that stage.
This Service noted the complaint investigation was handled and responded to at both stages by the same person. This handling presents as contrary to the Code’s then provisions about the fairness of complaint investigations. The resident complaint included concern about how that particular officer handled their complaint and the remedy offered.
To ensure the fairness of investigation expected by the Code, it would not be expected that the same person would manage all stages of a complaint process. There is a reasonable risk of a conflict of interest if the same person determines a complaint about their own previous decision-making. The landlord was to ensure the complaints handler acted in an independent way with an open mind to the complaint under review. This report has found that a number of matters raised by the resident at stage 1 were not reviewed at stage 2. There was a consistent lack of reflection upon the resident’s assertions or stated impact. It is not unreasonable to consider this may be explained by the lack of independent review by a separate handler at stage 2. Indeed, once a different handler reviewed the case in 2023, it promptly acknowledged further failings and made an increased offer of financial redress.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was procedurally unfair. This was reasonably likely to have contributed to its failure to undertake a full investigation and provide appropriate recognition of the impact of its failings. This Service notes the landlord’s updated complaints policy now prohibits such practice occurring, requiring consideration by different persons at the different stages.
The lack of procedural fairness, together with unreasonable delay against policy timescales, failure to log an earlier complaint and inadequate communications represent maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident was put to time and trouble from repeatedly asserting their expressions of dissatisfaction and chasing contact. Despite their efforts, they were left waiting for responses at both complaint stages outside of the timescales promised, causing distress and inconvenience. Once an escalated investigation was underway, this was not conducted in a procedurally fair way. This caused further detriment by denying an independent reconsideration of his concerns. Although the landlord made a belated effort to put matters right with an increased financial offer, it still did not appropriately address the findings noted in this report. It is positive to note the landlord subsequently updated its policy position in line with the Code, however this investigation identified failings in the relevant period and orders financial redress to the resident in compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of breakdowns of the communal lifts.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The lifts in the resident’s block were subject to frequent breakdown. The landlord started a programme of replacement during the period under investigation and appropriately prioritised timely repairs. Pending resolution, the resident continued to experience periods of outages and on occasion, became trapped inside. There is little evidence the landlord considered and responded appropriately to the impact of the breakdowns on the resident by its communications or assessed potential associated risks and appropriate mitigation measures. Despite the resident’s complaint, the landlord was initially defensive and displayed a lack of transparency. It failed to adequately address its failings or provide a proportionate remedy reflective of the impacts to the resident and their family.
The landlord assigned an appropriate level of internal priority to remedial work to the leak but failed to complete effective repair for over a month. The delay experienced by the resident was contrary to the landlord’s maintenance policy and repairing obligations. It failed to take proactive steps to forewarn the resident or assess potential risks posed to their home, despite being aware of leaks from the flat directly above. There is further no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s household circumstances in line with its policy or wider risks associated with fire safety to the block. It failed to keep the resident appropriately updated about its repair efforts. While the landlord did acknowledge limited failings in its communications concerning the leak, its complaint response failed to recognise or seek to redress its full failings.
The landlord provided regular and timely updates to the resident concerning its investigations into the fire safety of the external wall to the building and its responsive measures. However, some important matters of fire safety were not communicated or outlined with sufficient clarity. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the resident’s household needs and potential evacuation difficulties in line with fire safety obligations. There were delays noted within the landlord’s sequence of testing, inspection and servicing of its fire detection, response and fighting equipment and systems. Similarly, there was inconsistent evidence of its block inspection regime, a key fire risk management measure.
Unreasonable delay occurred to remedial work or actions on a number of fire safety related items. There was a lack of evidenced quality assurance or control of contracted services operating within the block. The limitations of the records provided by the landlord are suggestive of poor record keeping. The landlord’s failings were significant in nature and unreasonably heightened the risk to the resident and his family.
The resident’s initial express request to raise a formal complaint was not handled in line with the landlord’s policy. Complaint responses were unreasonably delayed at both stages and the resident was not kept updated. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was procedurally unfair due to the same person being tasked with handling and responding to the concerns at both stages.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,650 compensation, minus the £350 already paid to the resident (£2,300 net in total). It is comprised of:
  1. £600 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the lift breakdowns.
  2. £600 to recognise the avoidable distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  3. £1,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience resulting from its handling of fire safety.
  4. £450 to recognise the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its failures in complaint handling.
3. The landlord is also to conduct a review as to whether, on the basis of the findings of this report, further compensation is due for further distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident after 5 January 2022 arising from the landlord’s handling of the lift breakdowns up to the point of its frank apology in October 2022. The landlord’s decision is to be signed off by the senior member of staff carrying out the below ordered review. The landlord is to then to write to the resident and this Service to confirm what its position is and to provide an explanation for this.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review at senior management level to determine what action it should take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified by this report. The review should include but not be limited to an assessment of:
1. Whether it has sufficient risk assessment process in place to enable the prioritisation of remedial work and actions impacting fire related risks .
2. How it will quality assure compliance with its fire safety policies and procedures to avoid lapsed testing, servicing, and inspection.
3. Its quality assurance and control of the waking watch service.
4. The cause of data capturing issues noted and how to improve record keeping.
5. Its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

The landlord should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not already done so, compete a feasibility assessment of the option(s) available to complete the removal and replacement of the combustible wall structure in parallel to its negotiations and litigation.