Sanctuary Housing Association (202314757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314757

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision that the resident cannot store her electric wheelchair (the wheelchair) in the communal corridor due to fire safety concerns.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 2011. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a purpose-built block which is part of a retirement scheme. The resident has Parkinson’s disease, and the landlord is aware of this vulnerability. A representative has assisted the resident in making her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman. Other friends of the resident have supported her in writing to her MP and local councillor about this issue and attending a meeting with the landlord.
3. The landlord carried out a fire risk assessment in July 2022 which identified that escape routes were not being kept free from unnecessary combustible materials including the wheelchair outside the resident’s flat. It noted that such items should be removed by 27 January 2023. Following a health and safety audit on 23 January 2023, residents were given until the end of that day to clear any items from escape routes in the building.
4. On 7 February 2023 the representative made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that the wheelchair and other mobility aids were now in the resident’s flat, and she no longer had room to move around without difficulty. The representative said that the wheelchair also blocked the door to the garden and the resident was unable to access her wheelchair easily to leave the building. The representative added that, when the resident had bought the flat 11 years ago, there had been a specific agreement that she would be able to keep the wheelchair in the passage beside the front door. She said, as an outcome, an urgent fire risk assessment should be carried out with proper attention given to the welfare of the residents to live their lives without unnecessary rules and obstacles.
5. The landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaint procedure on 13 February 2023 as it did not have authority from the resident to communicate with the representative. The landlord explained this and also how the resident could give that authorisation.
6. In response to the issues raised, the landlord explained that it was required to take action following the fire risk assessment and health and safety audit. It said that all personal belongings should be kept inside the home, and not stored elsewhere. It added that mobility scooters, electric scooters and wheelchairs were a specific concern in regard to fire safety. It said it was very sorry to hear of the upset this matter had caused the resident and that she felt these measures were unnecessary, but as a landlord it took fire safety extremely seriously. This letter said the resident could call the landlord to discuss the letter but did not explain how she could escalate the complaint.
7. On 19 February 2023 the representative told the landlord that its response of 13 February 2023 did not adequately address all the matters raised. She made several points including that it might be difficult for the resident to escape the flat in the events of a fire due to the wheelchair being kept in it; and that the battery could be removed from the wheelchair if it was stored outside the flat. The representative asked the landlord to contact the resident so that authority could be given to her to act on her behalf. The landlord sent a third-party authorisation form to the representative a few days later. In response, she said she would ask the resident to sign it but, in the meantime, asked the landlord to progress the complaint and respond to the resident.
8. On 5 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord repeating the points made by the representative and expressing her concern at her cramped living conditions. She gave the landlord authority to deal with a number of named individuals on her behalf who were assisting her.
9. The landlord subsequently met with the resident and a number of her supporters on 27 March 2023. The landlord noted that the flat was “cluttered” with mobility aids and noted the wheelchair was in front of the patio door which would impede any escape in the case of fire. The landlord asked if it would be acceptable to the resident to keep the wheelchair in a storage cupboard which could be accessed when the chair was needed. The resident said this was not reasonable because of the time it would take for a carer to get the chair from the floor above, it would eat into the allotted time, and she could not afford to pay for any more care.
10. The landlord stressed that the chief fire officer had confirmed that leaving anything in the corridor was not negotiable. It explained that, while the flat was at the end of a corridor, and no other resident was required to pass by in an evacuation, the wheelchair might give off toxic fumes. This was a concern as the area was next to the main front door and fire exit. The landlord noted a copy of the fire risk assessment was left and it agreed to follow up with an email confirming the discussion as well as an option to try to resolve matters.
11.  On 18 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It offered, by way of solution, a storeroom on the first floor where the wheelchair could be left when not in use. It explained this would remove it from the flat and ensure the resident had access to the garden door. It added the storeroom was locked and secure. It said arrangements could be made to access the wheelchair during office hours. It said it hoped she would agree to this compromise.
12. On 18 June 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord saying she still did not have a key to the storeroom. On the following day, the landlord apologised. It said a key was available for the resident in the scheme office and had been since the original letter offering the use of the room dated 18 April 2023.
13. The representative subsequently approached this Service and on 12 October 2023 we asked it to progress the resident’s complaint about the storage of the wheelchair.
14. On 19 October 2023 the landlord issued another stage one complaint response. It attached the response of 13 February 2023 and apologised that it did not include escalation details in that letter. It gave details of the meeting held in March 2023 and said the risk of toxic fumes and smoke caused by the wheelchair were too extreme for it to allow storage of any personal items in the corridor area outside the flat. The landlord said it had offered the resident a storeroom on the first floor to keep the wheelchair in and, during office hours, the key could be obtained from the scheme manager when the resident required access.
15. The landlord added that it understood the resident wanted a further fire risk assessment to be carried out in the hope a second opinion would determine it safe to store items in the corridor outside of the flat. It explained that it had previously arranged a review with the senior fire technician and a health and safety audit had been carried out. It said these both determined the same outcome as the initial fire risk assessment. The landlord offered to speak to the resident about any challenges she was facing when trying to use the storeroom. The landlord offered her £150 for the complaint handling failures in issuing the stage one complaint response and explained how she could escalate the complaint.
16. On 30 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said that she had not asked for, nor accepted, compensation. She explained that she wanted her needs to be considered adequately and respectfully. The resident disagreed that the landlord’s responses had been prompt and added that she still did not have a satisfactory answer on why she could not store the wheelchair outside the front door of her property.
17. Almost 3 months later, on 23 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for the delay in doing so. It noted that the resident had had a key for the storeroom where her wheelchair was kept since 14 July 2023. It said, having reviewed the case, it was satisfied it had dealt with the matter in line with its fire safety and health and safety policies and procedures. The landlord explained that, while the resident might have had informal or verbal agreements in place regarding the storage of the wheelchair outside the flat door, and the use of the shared storage facility, these had been superseded by the actions required as a result of the fire risk and health and safety assessments. The landlord gave details of its fire safety policy which said it must ensure that the means of escape routes in the property were kept clear of all obstructions and storage was to be effectively used at all times.
18. The landlord acknowledged delays in the investigation of the complaint at stage 2 and offered £300 for its complaint handling failures at both complaint stages.  (This replaced the offer of £150 at stage one.) It signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
19. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said she had purchased the flat specifically because she could store the wheelchair outside it. She described the loss of freedom by having it in a storeroom which she needed a carer to access on her behalf. The resident said she wanted the landlord to keep to its original agreement. She added that the wheelchair did not cause an obstruction and she was willing to cover it with a fire-proof blanket. In later correspondence, the representative asked if it would be possible for the landlord’s on-site housekeeper to fetch the wheelchair from upstairs and make it ready for the resident when she wanted to go out.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision that the resident cannot store her wheelchair in the communal corridor due to fire safety concerns

20. The landlord has mobility scooter storage guidance which says its focus for is people to have a full and enjoyable lifestyle is balanced by the need to protect the health and safety of all residents. This guidance covers the 3 classes of mobility scooters which includes manual wheelchairs as category one and powered wheelchairs as category 2 or 3 depending on their maximum speed. It is clear that electric wheelchairs therefore fall under the guidance that relates to mobility scooters. For ease, we will refer to mobility scooters in this report when that is the terminology used in the guidance.
21. The landlord’s homeowners’ handbook says that if a resident has a motorised scooter to help them get around, it will do all it can to provide storage. It says sometimes that may not be possible due to the layout or nature of the building. The handbook adds that the landlord cannot normally allow residents to store any car or scooter in the shared corridors because of health and fire safety rules.
22. The landlord’s decision that the resident should not store the wheelchair in the hallway outside the flat was appropriate because it was in line with its guidance on mobility scooter storage. This says that scooters should not be stored or charged in internal communal areas unless it is an area that has been specifically designed for that purpose. The guidance explains that storage of mobility scooters in communal areas such as corridors and community lounges heightens the risk to people in the event of fire. This might either be a fire caused by the scooter itself or the obstruction caused to other residents as they escape and there was also a risk to emergency services when entering the building.
23. We acknowledge the area outside the flat is a dead-end corridor albeit with a window leading to the main fire escape route. We also note the resident’s view that the elderly residents would not be able to use the window in the event of a fire. However, as the landlord explained when it met the resident in March 2023, the wheelchair may present other dangers than solely blocking a potential escape route. The UK National Fire Chiefs Council (the NFCC) set out the risk in their mobility scooter guidance for residential buildings. This is that, when mobility scooters are involved in a fire, they can release large volumes of smoke and generate significant heat outputs. This guidance says, in all residential buildings, landlords should have policies in place to ensure that residents keep any personal belongings within their property, and this may include mobility scooters. Given this further guidance, the landlord’s decision was also reasonable to protect all residents.
24. The Ombudsman understands that the resident had a previous agreement with the landlord to store the wheelchair in the corridor. There is no evidence that this was a formal agreement and therefore it appears that it was informal, meaning the landlord was entitled to end the agreement at any time. The landlord would be expected to explain its reasons for ending the agreement and to consider alternatives to assist the resident with storing the wheelchair. The evidence suggests that it did so.
25. The landlord took action to try to find a suitable resolution for the resident. This was an appropriate step to take to reduce the risk of fire in the flat at that time given that the wheelchair was potentially blocking an escape route. It was also in line with the NFCC’s mobility scooter guidance which says that where a domestic dwelling is not suitable for the storage of a mobility scooter (for example where the resident’s own means of escape from their dwelling could be affected) then other areas of the building should be considered. This should include assessing existing rooms or areas within the grounds where reasonable adjustments can be made to store scooters. In identifying a suitable storage location for the wheelchair, the landlord acted reasonably.
26. It is clear from speaking to the resident that this solution is not working for her. The resident told us that her activities had been curtailed due to the time taken by her carer to fetch and return the wheelchair to the storeroom which takes up the carer’s limited time. We recognise that use of an electric wheelchair enhances the quality of life for individuals and enables them to access facilities in the wider community. We therefore appreciate the distress and frustration this matter has caused the resident.
27. The landlord has an obligation to balance the safety of all residents in the block with its obligations towards the resident under the Equality Act in terms of her disability. This Service does not have the power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 (which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act). Only the courts can make that decision as these are legal matters which sit outside the landlord’s complaints process. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Equality Act whereby it would be expected to offer reasonable adjustments to assist disabled residents with using their properties.
28. In this case we consider that the landlord acted appropriately by making a reasonable adjustment for the resident which allowed the wheelchair to be kept safely within the building, albeit one that the resident is dissatisfied with. The resident told us that the landlord had also considered other options such as external storage, which it rejected as there was no space. We understand it also rejected the resident’s suggestion of keeping the wheelchair under the stairs because of the heightened fire risk. It is reasonable to presume that the landlord would also reject the resident’s suggestion to us – of keeping the wheelchair under a fire-resistant blanket in the corridor – on the same grounds because such a blanket would not seal the wheelchair completely from any fire and it could still cause an obstruction to people attempting to escape the building, even it was not blocking the main escape route. We are satisfied that the landlord has acted appropriately by offering a reasonable adjustment and therefore it has shown consideration for its obligations under the Equality Act.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

29. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. This says the landlord aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 days at stage 2. It also says that the landlord may offer financial compensation or an alternative goodwill gesture within the guidelines of its compensation guidance.
30. The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It acknowledged that it did not give details of how to escalate the complaint in its first stage one complaint response in February 2023. It also acknowledged a delayed stage 2 complaint response in January 2024 and offered a total of £300 for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by those failings.
31. We have identified further failings in its complaint handling. The landlord should have recognised the representative and resident’s communication of 19 February and 5 March 2023 as requests for escalation of the complaint. Further, when we asked the landlord to take action on the complaint in October 2023, the landlord should have recognised that a stage one response had been sent out previously and progressed it to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. All these failings resulted in a prolonged complaints procedure which lasted almost one year which meant the resident did not receive prompt responses to the concerns she raised.
32. The compensation guidance says that the landlord may offer compensation for delayed or poor responses to customers’ complaints. It adds that payments of up to £400 may be made in recognition of the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by a service failure. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 for the impact of the failings it identified.
33. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
34. We consider that the compensation of £300 offered by the landlord at stage 2 of the complaints procedures is reasonable financial redress for the impact of all the failures identified. However, an order has been made for a senior manager within the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the additional errors identified by this report, which amount to a service failure for which an apology is appropriate.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision that the resident cannot store the wheelchair in the communal corridor due to fire safety concerns.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

37. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with this order:
    1. A senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

38. It is recommended that the landlord respond to the representative’s query about if it would be possible for its on-site housekeeper to fetch the wheelchair from upstairs and make it ready for the resident when she wanted to go out.