Peabody Trust (202115463)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115463

Peabody Trust

31 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the:
1. Maintenance and tests of the equipment to prevent legionella disease.
2. Communication about the fire alarm system.
3. The service charge for the works to the fire alarm system.
4. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a lease which commenced on 25 July 2013. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
The property is described as a flat located on the 6th floor.
The landlord’s service charge policy states that service charges are set annually and that “it will discontinue a service if it believes that it is reasonable to do so”. In addition, it will not “charge its resident for the cost of a service where their property is excluded from the benefits of the service”.
The landlord’s water policy advises that it will survey properties that have communal water systems to carry out inspections and that risk assessments will be reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
The landlord’s fire safety policy aims to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees, customers, contractors and members of the public. It carries out a rolling programme of fire risk assessment and estate inspections to identify, manage or remove potential fire hazards.
The landlord’s complaints procedure advises that in the first instance it will register expressions of dissatisfaction for issues that it can quickly resolve. It operates a two-stage complaint process with complaints at its first stage resolved within 10 working days and within 15 working days at its final stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to managing compensation awards. The current published version is available online and is dated February 2022. The previous version dated December 2020, which is applicable to this complaint, has three categories for time, trouble and inconvenience payments: minor disruption from £1 to £100; moderate disruption from £101 to £300 and extensive disruption from £301 to £400. In addition, it assesses poor complaint handling as: minor failure: £1 to £25, moderate failure from £26 to £75 and severe failure from £76 to £100.

Scope of complaint

The resident has complained that the landlord failed to carry out fire prevention and maintenance checks to its fire equipment between 2013 to 2019. The resident also complained that the landlord failed to carry out legionella testing of its water tanks between 2013 to 2017.
There is no evidence that the resident made any formal complaints to the landlord about the above matters that exhausted the landlord’s complaint process and that the complaints were referred to the Ombudsman during that time.
The resident’s complaint about the fire prevention was made to the landlord in December 2020 and the complaint about the landlord’s management of its water supply was made on 22 June 2021. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the fire prevention, this investigation report will consider events from January 2020 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Summary of events

On 29 January 2020, the landlord’s records show that, it decided to obtain a quote to replace the existing fire alarm system. The resident emailed the landlord, six months later, on 21 June 2020 to advise that she had been in contact with the London Fire Brigade regarding the fire alarm system. She advised that she was aware that work to install a functioning fire alarm had stopped because of the Covid 19 pandemic. The resident requested that the landlord provide an update and a schedule of the outstanding work for the fire alarm system.
On 23 June 2020, the Fire Safety Manager (FSM) informed the resident that the Electrical Contract Manager (ECM) was looking into her concerns regarding the fire alarm system and that he expected to receive an update the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2020 and 19 July 2020 to chase the update on the fire alarm system
The landlord carried out a fire risk assessment on 15 July 2020. The main findings were:
1. The fire detection and alarm system should be installed within all flats.
2. A category L5 fire detection and alarm system was installed which covered the plant room, bin stores and electrical intake cupboards.
3. When triggered, the fire detection and alarm system cut out the building heating and hot water systems.
4. It has received numerous complaints from residents when the heating and hot water system failed and there has also been false alarms.
The FSM emailed the resident on 20 July 2020 to advise that his team was conducting a risk assessment of all the properties on the estate that week and going forward the ECM would be taking the lead.
The resident emailed the ECM on 26 July 2020 to request an update on the installation of the fire alarm system. She advised that the location of a fire detector was unknown, that the fire alarm system causes the plant room to cease operating leaving residents without heating and hot water on a regular basis in the winter. The resident also asked whether the fire risk assessment considered the fire alarm system.
The landlord responded the following day (27 July 2020) to advise that the fire risk assessor had attended the block the previous day and that the report was being produced.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2020 and 9 August 2020 to chase the report.
The ECM responded to the resident on 10 August 2020 to advise that he had received the report on the current fire alarm system. He was considering isolating the heating and hot water supply to resolve the false reports that had been received which could result from anti-social behaviour. The manufacturer of the fire alarm system would be attending the site in early September 2020.
On 23 August 2020, the resident asked the ECM what action was being taken regarding the missing fire detector and the lack of validation of the fire alarm system in 2013.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2020, 13 September 2020 and 20 September 2020 to chase a response to her enquiry.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2020 to advise that she would make a complaint if the landlord did not respond to her concerns that:
1. The original fire alarm and detector was not correctly installed and was not working correctly in March 2020.
2. The landlord had not carried out correct preventative service and fire equipment maintenance checks between 2013 to 2019 as a fire detector could not be located.
3. The landlord had decided to install a new fire system. Therefore, the costs should not be passed on to residents.
The ECM emailed the resident on 13 October 2020 to advise that it had identified the detector.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2020 and 25 October 2020 to advise that it had only responded to her enquiry as she had threatened to make a complaint and requested that it advise of the date that the fire alarm system would be replaced.
The landlord informed the resident on 26 October 2020 that works to the fire alarm system would be completed by 7 November 2020.
During November 2020, the resident raised further enquiries regarding the fire safety work to remove and replace insulation in the communal cupboards and the fire detection system to the bin storage area.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord provided the resident with the requested reports regarding the fire alarm maintenance system and apologised for the delay. In addition, it informed the resident that it was in the process of recruiting new contractors to carry out the work.
The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 20 December 2020. She complained that the landlord had not responded to her emails since June 2020, that the fire alarm system had not been installed property or checked between 2013 to 2019. The landlord had been trying to find a resolution for the fire alarm system for 15 months and any costs relating to the maintenance of the fire alarm system for the period 2013 to 2019 should not be charged to residents.
The landlord acknowledged the expression of dissatisfaction on 23 December 2020 and advised the resident that she would receive a response within 10 working days.
The resident requested on 27 December 2020 that the landlord raise an expression of dissatisfaction as it had failed to respond to her concerns regarding the fire equipment for three months.
On 6 January 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it was already handling an expression of dissatisfaction regarding the fire alarm and servicing therefore her concerns regarding the lack of communication regarding the fire equipment would be answered as part of that complaint response.
The resident responded on 10 January 2021 that the landlord was trying to hide the issues that she had raised by combining the complaints into a single complaint response.
The resident chased the complaint response on 17 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 24 January 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 January 2021 to apologise for the delay in providing its complaint response. It advised the resident that it would respond to the complaint on 27 January 2021.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that as it had missed its complaint deadline, it had escalated the complaint to the first stage of its complaint procedure.
The resident chased the complaint response on 10 February 2021, 7 March 2021, 12 March 2021, 14 March 2021 and 18 March 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 March 2021 to apologise for the delay in providing its complaint response but could not confirm when it would be provided.
The landlord’s internal records show on 22 March 2021 that it discussed that it had dealt with the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm detector in the bin store in 2019. The fire alarm system had been changed and was serviced on a regular basis. Therefore, it considered that the outstanding issue was the service charge.
The resident chased the complaint response on 11 April 2021, 9 May 2021, 14 May 2021 and 7 June 2021.
The resident completed the landlord’s complaint form. The resident complained that
1. The landlord had failed to carry out legionella testing between 2013 to 2017.
2. The landlord had failed to take the corrective action specified in the legionella report in 2020.
3. The legionella report was inaccurate as it did not record the correct height of the building – 6 storeys
4. The landlord had not checked the communal hot water system since 2018.
5. The landlord had informed its contractor that the building did not have a communal hot water system when it did.
6. The landlord had said that testing had been carried out by the previous landlord and that information was not available due to the merger. However, at the time of the merger, the landlord had said that it would retain the same system from 2017 to 2022 before a gradual transfer to the landlord’s systems – therefore the landlord should have records.
7. The landlord had not carried out the high priority work within the three-month time frame specified in the report.
8. The resident advised that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to produce an action plan to stop their systemic failing of estate management and contractor oversight.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 22 June 2021. On the same day, the resident requested that her complaint be considered at the first stage of the complaint procedure.
The landlord informed the resident on 24 June 2021 that it had received a large number of complaints, which had led to a delay in the registration of her complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the legionella testing on 2 July 2021. The landlord apologised for its delay in registering the complaint. The key findings were:
1. It could not investigate her complaint that checks were not carried out between 2013 to 2017 as its complaints policy says that it will not investigate issues that was not bought to its attention within a six-month period.
2. The records for the previous landlord were no longer available.
3. It had records to confirm that from 2018, it had completed annual checks and risk assessments every two years. The last risk assessment had been carried out in November 2020.
4. The legionella report had said that the water tanks needed to be cleaned within three months and that was assessed as a medium risk.
5. Following its review of the report, it assessed it as a low risk and the cleaning of the water tanks has to be completed every six months.
6. It had cleaned the water tanks in April 2021, which fell within the six-month period.
7. It had not assessed that there were no risks to residents and had carried out the work within its published time frames.
8. It had carried out monthly checks to the hot water system, recommissioned the system and carried out extensive works in 2018 to 2019.
9. It provided a copy of the report to the resident.
The resident provided the landlord’s an example of its attitude towards its residents on 4 July 2021. The extract stated “Why is this raised, its absolute rubbish, how does she know we have not tested for 8 years legionella testing, it’s another angle that she is now using and wasting everyone’s time and costs. We have to stop this.” The resident stated that the language and content of the email was indictive of the landlord’s attitudes towards its leaseholders.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 5 July 2021 for the inappropriate comment in the email and advised that it expected all its staff to be courteous to residents. The landlord explained that the officer was frustrated at receiving the complaint as it had been already addressed and the believed that he had worked hard to improve things. The landlord advised that annual checks had been completed that it would take some time to build trust and that the officer would be spoken to about his comments.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 20 July 2020, it recognised that the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction had not been responded to regarding the fire alarm system and that the complaint had been closed.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint about the fire alarm system to the bin store. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. The key findings were:
1. It recognised that the resident had been chasing its complaint response since February 2021.
2. The fire alarm detector in the bin store was originally placed there as a safety measure.
3. The fire risk assessment carried out in June 2020, reassessed the location of the fire alarm detector and considered resident feedback.
4. The landlord decided to remove the fire alarm detector from the bin store which reduced the risk of the heating shutting down for residents due to false alarms.
5. It confirmed that the fire alarm was removed at the end of November 2020.
6. It apologised for not keeping her updated and for not informing her when the work was completed.
7. It confirmed that the costs of the works would not be passed on to residents.
8. It accepted that it had failed to respond to her expression of dissatisfaction and that there were delays in responding to her stage one complaint.
9. It had arranged training for its staff on the system and to follow its customer service procedures.
10. It awarded an overall compensation award of £200: broken down as £100 for its delays in complaint handling and £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
The resident escalated the complaint regarding the fire alarm system in the bin store on 1 August 2021. The resident complained that
1. The landlord was not managing complaints property.
2. Between 2013 to 2018, the landlord had installed fire dampeners and had not said whether an effective alarm system was in place.
3. The landlord had not said whether leaseholders would be charged for fire alarm callouts.
4. The landlord should confirm whether the fire alarm system was effective.
5. The landlord had not acted on her request for the service charges for the fire alarm system in the bin store to be reviewed.
6. The landlord had labelled her as a persistent complainer rather than dealing with the issues she had bought to its attention.
7. The landlord had a default position of registering complaints as expressions of dissatisfaction rather than handling them as complaints.
8. She requested that the personal attacks from the landlord’s staff cease.
On 5 August 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s escalated complaint regarding legionella disease. The key findings were:
1. The boiler room for the building is located in another building, hence the report for the building showed that it did not have a communal hot water system.
2. The complaint process was to address live issues; therefore, it could not investigate issues going back to 2013.
3. Its in house expert had assessed the water report and was satisfied that the landlord had complied with the regulations.
4. It requested that when the resident made a complaint, she stated all the issues that she wanted considered in the original report and did not add additional items when escalating her complaint to later stages of the complaint procedure.
5. It made an award of compensation of £10 for its complaint handling failures in registering the complaint.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord provided its response to the resident’s escalated complaint regarding the fire alarm. The key findings were:
1. It accepted that it had not adhered to complaint handling procedures and clarified that though an expression of dissatisfaction had been raised, this did not prevent the matters being dealt with as a formal complaint.
2. It acknowledged that the stage one complaint response did not recognise the delays in its complaint handling or its communication with the resident and it offered its apologies for this.
3. Whilst it could not see in its handling of this particular complaint, that personal attacks had been made against the resident, it had reviewed other communication where this had occurred and acknowledged that the service had not met its expectations.
4. It stated that issues raised by the resident regarding the fire alarm system was over six months month and would consider this to assist with the investigation.
5. The fire alarm system was for the protection of residents.
6. It had received complaints from residents about faults from the fire alarm system and it had raised reports when the heating to the building had failed.
7. It had undertaken a risk assessment in 2020 which had reassessed the location of the fire alarm sensor, this had led to the relocation of the sensor in November 2020. This had no impact on the residents living in the building.
8. It acknowledged that the expression of dissatisfaction was escalated to a stage one complaint on 27 January 2021 as the resident had not received a response despite her chasing the landlord.
9. The stage one complaint response was sent on 31 July 2021. This was outside its published stage one timescales.
10. It apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response, lack of explanation provided for the delays, lack of communication between its teams and said that it did not believe that this evidenced that there was systemic failings.
11. It reiterated that the fire alarm costs for the bin store would not be passed onto the resident.
12. It would carry out further staff training on complaint handling, which would include maintaining communication with residents.
13. It reviewed the compensation offered at stage one of the complaints procedure and agreed that the compensation award was in line with its compensation policy.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had removed the fire sensor costs from the leaseholder accounts for the financial year 2020/2021.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response from the landlord and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Maintenance and tests of the equipment to prevent legionella disease

The resident raised concerns that the landlord had failed to carry out testing for legionnaires disease between 2013 to 2017, The landlord in its complaint response informed the resident that it would investigate current issues but would not consider issues relating to 2013 to 2017. The landlord’s response was reasonable as residents are expected to raise current issues with their landlord and if the resident believed that that the landlord was not compliant with its responsibilities, it should have raised the issues with the landlord at the time, but there is no evidence that the resident had done so.
The landlord is responsible for the management and maintenance of the water tanks. In accordance with its responsibilities, it arranged for the water tank to be inspected in October 2020. The water hygiene risk assessment identified that the water storage breaks tanks was compliant with the water supply (water fittings) regulation 1999. However, the risk assessment also noted that the water tanks had less than 20% sediment on the bottom of the tanks and biofilm on the surface of the cold-water storage tanks. The report assessed the water tanks as a medium risk and recommended that the water tanks were cleaned and disinfected within six months. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider and act on the recommendations of the risk assessment. However, the landlord did not complete the cleaning of the water tanks until April 2021, which was just outside the six-month period stated in the report.
The resident raised concerns about the heating and hot water systems to the landlord. However, the Service has already determined a complaint about the heating and hot water system in 2019 regarding the work carried out and the review of the heating and hot water system that the landlord had undertaken. Therefore, those issues will not be investigated as part of this complaint as the issues have already been considered by this Service.

Communication about the fire alarm system

It is not disputed that the resident contacted the landlord regarding its decision to replace the fire alarm system in June 2020. The resident requested an update and the schedule that the landlord was working to and the landlord provided its fire risk assessment on 15 July 2020. This provided the resident with the requested information on the outcomes of the fire risk assessment and the actions that the landlord was expected to carry out.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update on the installation of the fire alarm system and the location of a fire detector on the 26 July 2020. From what can be seen, the resident experienced unreasonable delays in receiving responses to her communication from the ECM. The resident chased an update on 2 August 2020, 9 August 2020, 6 September 2020, 13 September 2020 and 20 September 2020. The resident had to wait over two months before she received a response on 13 October 2020 from the ECM who advised that the fire detection had been identified. This was not appropriate, as the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns appeared to suggest that the landlord was not taken her communication seriously.
It is noted that the ECM informed the resident on 10 August 2020 that it proposed to isolate the heating and hot water supply to resolve the false fire alarms that it was receiving and that it was arranging for the manufacture of the system to attend site in early September 2020. This was appropriate to resolve the false reports that was causing the loss of heating and hot water when the sensor incorrectly activated. It is noted that the sensor was removed by the landlord in November 2020.
The landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry about the completion of the work to the fire alarm system on 26 October 2020, which she had made the previous day. This provided reassurance to the resident as it provided the timeline that the landlord was working to, to conclude the installation of the fire alarm system.
The resident requested clarification of the actual fire safety work that that the landlord had carried out to the bin storage area and that those works to remove the sensor to the bin store would not be recharged to leaseholders on 9 November 2020. The landlord provided confirmation to the resident that the installation of the fire alarm had taken place in November 2020. However, when the resident raised further enquiries, the resident had to wait for over a month (14 December 2020) for the landlord to provide the reports of the fire alarm maintenance system. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for its delay in providing the requested information.
The resident informed the landlord she was aware that its staff had made inappropriate comment about her and requested that the personal attacks against her stop. The landlord apologised to the resident and advised that it had spoken to its member of staff. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it has a responsibility to ensure that communication with its residents is respectful and in accordance with its service standards. It was appropriate that having reviewed the communication, the landlord decided that it needed to take further action and spoke to its member of staff as his behaviour had fallen below what had been expected. This was to give assurance to the resident that her concerns had been taken seriously and actions had been taken to prevent a reoccurrence of that behaviour, especially as that resident believed that it was embedded within the organization.
The landlord in its complaint response recognised that it had failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s communication and awarded compensation of £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience, she experienced in making the complaint.
In considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy and this Services’ own Dispute Resolution Principles. These principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the resident had raised a number of different enquiries with the landlord regarding the installation of the fire alarm system. From what can be seen, on certain occasions, the landlord responded on a timely basis to the resident’s concerns, however, there were other times when the landlord did not respond quickly to the resident’s communication especially if she requested evidence to support its actions.
The landlord in its complaint review, looked at all the enquiries that the resident had raised regarding the fire alarm system, the resident’s request for reports and the decision to remove the fire detection from the bin store and concluded that it could have better managed its communication with her. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its communication. Furthermore, it has offered appropriate compensation to resolve the complaint which is considered proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

Recharging of the service charge costs for the works to the fire alarm system

The resident complained that leaseholders should not have to pay the costs for the removal of the fire sensor in the bin store. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed that the charge would not be passed on to leaseholders. This was a reasonable approach to take as it was in accordance with its service charge policy which allows it to discontinue a service. In addition, it considered the inconvenience that had been experienced by the resident when the heating system had failed following a false report from the sensor.
The landlord’s submission to this Service evidenced that the sensor costs for the bin store were removed from the final accounts for the financial year 2020/2021.

The related complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out how it handles complaints and the time frames for its responses. Looking at the facts of this case, it is noted that there were failings with the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 December 2020 regarding the fire alarm system. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December 2020 and informed the resident that she would receive a response within 10 working days. In this particular case, it is not clear why the landlord informed the resident that she would receive its complaint response within 10 working days if it proposed to deal with the issues as an expression of interest and not as a stage one complaint. This lack of clarity meant that the resident was confused about how the landlord intended to deal with its complaint.
The resident raised another complaint on 27 December 2020 about the fire equipment. The landlord reviewed the complaint and appropriately informed the resident that as it was already handling a complaint about a similar matter, it would provide a single response. This was a reasonable response to take as the landlord was already investigating the resident’s concerns about the fire detection system, therefore it did not need to register another complaint. However, the landlord did need to ensure that its complaint response provided the resident with a comprehensive response to her concerns.
The resident chased the complaint response regarding the fire alarm on numerous occasions: 17 January 2021, 22 January 2021, 24 January 2021. The landlord apologised for its delayed response and provided the resident with a further deadline date of 27 January 2021. The landlord did not keep to its revised complaint handling deadline. When the landlord did not keep to its new complaint deadline it informed the resident that it had escalated the complaint response to Stage 1 of its complaints procedure. The landlord has not explained why it took so long to adopt this course of action as by this time the resident had already waited a month for its complaint response.
The resident experienced further delays to receiving the complaint response regarding the fire alarm and the resident chased the landlord on 10 February 2021, 7 March 2021, 12 March 2021, 14 March and 18 March 2021. The landlord acted inappropriately when it informed the resident that it did not know when it would be responding to her complaint. The Complaint Handling Code is clear that landlords should respond to complaints at the first stage of its complaint procedure within 10 working days unless it has agreed an extension with the resident.
The resident continued to chase the landlord’s complaint response regarding the fire equipment on 11 April 2021, 9 May 2021, 14 May 2021, until it provided it provided its complaint response on 30 July 2021. The resident had to wait seven months to receive the landlord’s complaint response – this was inappropriate.
The landlord in its complaint response reviewed its complaint handling and awarded the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures. This was in accordance with its compensation policy which assesses awards of severe failure between £75 to £100.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 August 2021 and the landlord responded to the complaint on 26 August 2021. This was in accordance with its published complaint handling timelines. The landlord apologised and acknowledged its failure to provide its complaint response in accordance with its published time frames. It had learnt from the complaint by identifying that further work was required with its communication with its residents and training on complaint handling but did not believe it had a systemic issue that needed addressing.
The landlord reviewed the compensation awarded at the earlier stage of the complaints procedure and reaffirmed the compensation award of £100 was appropriate for its complaint handling failures.
The resident complained about the landlord’s water management to protect against legionnaires disease on 20 June 2021. The landlord provided its complaint response on 2 July 2021.
The resident escalated the complaint to the second stage of the complaint procedure and the landlord responded within its published time limit. The landlord recognised that it had delayed in registering the escalated complaint and awarded compensation of £10. This was in accordance with its compensation procedure where it had assessed that there had been minimal impact on the resident.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint regarding the fire alarms in a timely manner meant that the resident experienced needless delays and frustration as she did not receive the complaint response and having to chase progress with the landlord, which was unreasonable. The landlord has recognised this and its communication failures, therefore, its award of £100 compensation represents reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the maintenance and tests of the equipment to prevent legionella disease.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern regarding the communication about the fire alarm system, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the recharging of the service charge costs for the works to the fire alarm system.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it acted on the recommendations within the risk assessment regarding the maintenance of the water tanks.
The landlord has acknowledged its failure to communicate properly with the resident which led to the resident having to chase progress with the landlord. The landlord has made an award of compensation for its communication failures and taken action regarding the inappropriate comments made by its member of staff.
The landlord agreed that the service charge would not be payable for the fire sensor in the bin store and arranged for this to be removed from the service charge.
The landlord has recognised that the resident experienced delays in obtaining responses to her complaint about the fire alarm system. It has recognised that communication with its residents need to be improved and has made an award of compensation for this.

Recommendations

The landlord is to pay the resident £210 in compensation, as previously offered (unless it can show it has already made this payment).
The landlord is to explain what active steps it has taken since July 2021, or intends to take in the future, to build trust and respect between residents and staff.