Stevenage Borough Council (202216063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216063

Stevenage Borough Council

28 February 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 the landlord’s response to the resident concerning a fire at the block.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and has been represented by his partner in the complaint. The property is a flat in a small block, with a car port and flat located underneath the resident’s flat. The landlord notes that staff are aware the resident has suffered with mental health issues in the past.
3. On 14 September 2022, a fire risk assessment (‘FRA’) was carried out at the block. This FRA gave the block an overall risk of ‘medium’ and said a flat door in the car port needed to be replaced with a FD30S selfclosing door. The landlord says that following this, a repair was raised to replace the door.
4. On 8 October 2022, a car in the car port caught fire. This led to the car port and flat below the resident being caused fire damage, communal areas and the resident’s property being affected by soot and smoke, and electrics and TV service being interrupted. The landlord was informed of the fire on 10 October and the same day its staff notified its insurance; attended the block to assess the damage; and spoke to the resident in person and provided him with their contact details.
5. The same month, the landlord met with a loss adjuster; arranged communal electric tests; arranged communal stairwell cleaning; and liaised with the loss adjuster and contractors in relation to quotes for remedial works to the car port and flat below the resident. In November, the landlord arranged for the TV service to be investigated; awarded the contract for remedial works; and commenced the remedial works. In December, the majority of remedial works were completed, with some remaining works completed in January 2023.
6. The resident complained about how long the building was left in a fire damaged state, which led to dirt and soot being trodden into his flat; a lack of checks on resident welfare; the length of time it took to assure him the building was safe; a lack of communication about the action plan to reinstate the building; and the lack of practical help and disregard for the stress and upset he was caused. He raised concern that the flat door in the car port, which burned through and allowed the fire to enter the flat below, was not replaced before the fire in line with a FRA, and said this was negligent. He requested compensation for the impact on his mental and physical health, time taken off work and living in the conditions he had; some cleaning and works to communal areas; reimbursement of his TV licence for periods he was without a TV service; and reimbursement of the excess for an insurance claim he made for items affected by soot and smoke smells.
7. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. acknowledged that it was an extremely difficult time for the resident and it was not pleasant to live in a fire-damaged building.
   2. said all works would be completed on 23 December 2022 and 4 January 2024; the communal areas would be deep cleaned before 20 December; and he would be kept updated.
   3. noted he had been provided explanation at a meeting about why works only commenced 6 weeks after the fire, and said it was satisfied action had been taken to start them as quickly as possible.
   4. noted it had visited and spoken to the resident multiple times and given him staff contact details, but said it should have made clearer he could contact them at anytime.
   5. said there were no structural concerns, but it should have provided information about building safety, action plans and progress updates without his chasing.
   6. apologised that no one checked on his welfare until a month after the fire, and said it should have provided explanation sooner, to reassure him it was giving the issue appropriate attention, help with his anxiety and help him feel supported.
   7. explained that the door from the car port was not classified as a risk until the 2022 FRA, when a new door was requested prior to the fire, and was not yet replaced due to the time it took to manufacture a new door.
   8. acknowledged that an issue with the TV system should have been resolved sooner, and said it would reimburse the period he was without a TV service.
   9. said that a request to reimburse the excess for an insurance claim would not be considered as part of the complaint, and should be considered by its insurance.
   10. acknowledged lessons could be learned in respect to communicating more effectively and having a more joined-up approach for similar incidents, which would be discussed internally to improve future service.
   11. apologised to the resident and awarded £250 in recognition of the anxiety caused by its handling and the difficulties he experienced.
8. The landlord later provided a follow up response to the resident in January 2024, prior to which it is understood its insurer declined to reimburse the resident’s insurance excess as the landlord had no liability for the fire. The landlord said that when responding to the complaint it could have reimbursed the £100 insurance excess to show it really did empathise with the resident’s situation, and it offered a further £150 in recognition of this.
9. The resident has restated aspects of his complaint, detailed other issues he is unhappy with such as service charge demands and leaks, and detailed how the experience was incredibly stressful, impacted his health and caused him to lose his job.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. The resident has raised additional issues to those which were the subject of his complaint. The Ombudsman normally only investigates issues which a landlord has had the opportunity to respond to in its complaint procedure. This investigation therefore focuses on the issues raised in the resident’s original complaints and the landlord’s responses to these.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning a fire at the block

11. The Ombudsman understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly remedy the extent of the impact of the circumstances on him, including staying with his partner for a period and losing his job. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he reports significantly affected and distressed him.
12. In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the specific role of a complaints procedure or the Ombudsman role to make a determination on matters such as negligence and the impact on mental or physical health. Such issues are best placed being considered under a liability claims procedure, and the resident has the option to seek independent advice about this. However, we can assess whether a landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case.
13. When a landlord receives a complaint, the Ombudsman expects it to consider issues raised by a complainant, consider any service issues, and where relevant consider appropriate remedy such as compensation and service improvements. In this case, the landlord responded in line with these expectations and what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
14. The landlord seemed to take appropriate action after the fire to ensure that damage was rectified as soon as possible. However, it is not disputed that resident engagement and communication should have been better. When fires occur, it is understandable that building safety and next steps will be of paramount concern to residents, and landlords should ensure these are effectively addressed. Landlords should also be mindful of the impact on vulnerable residents, and ensure vulnerable residents are identified and provided with appropriate support. Given the failings, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged service issues, sought to recognise the impact on the resident, and sought to identify learning and take steps to improve future service.
15. The resident’s TV service was affected by the time it took to resolve an issue with the TV system, and the evidence indicates there were missed opportunities for the landlord and its contractor to resolve the issue earlier. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered to reimburse an amount that was proportionate to the amount the resident will have paid for his TV licence for the period affected.
16. Fire authorities such as the fire service are best placed assessing if a landlord has been negligent in respect to fire safety, but in the Ombudsman’s view, there seems to have been no failing in respect to the car port door. The 2022 FRA rating was ‘medium,’ and the door requiring replacement did not result in the FRA finding a high or intolerable risk where residents would be at an unreasonable level of fire risk. The landlord took steps for the door to be replaced as soon as possible, and it seems reasonable this depended on manufacture times. That a fire took place before the door was replaced was highly unfortunate timing but does not seem a significant failing, given the FRA ‘medium’ risk rating and that action was being taken for the door.
17. The landlord initially declined to reimburse the resident for the excess he had paid for an insurance claim for items affected by the fire, and asked him to submit a claim for this to its insurer. The landlord does not seem unreasonable to do so, given that an insurance procedure is separate to the complaints procedure, and given the landlord’s liability for the fire and therefore the excess is an insurance matter. It was however positive that the landlord later reviewed this aspect and recognised that it could have reimbursed the excess to make clear to the resident that it did empathise with his situation. This demonstrates that the landlord was seeking to be sympathetic and customer focused.
18. Overall, the resident was clearly impacted by events, and caused frustration and distress by the lack of proactive information and updates about what was going on, which the landlord demonstrates it was sympathetic to. In its responses and £400 total compensation, the landlord has reasonably acknowledged, addressed and compensated for the failings within the scope of the complaint procedure.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning a fire at the block.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

20. The landlord to pay the resident the £400 and TV licence reimbursement it offered, if it has not paid this already.
21. The landlord to liaise with the resident in respect to recording his vulnerabilities in a centralised way, if he wishes and if this has not been done already, so that it can consider service adjustments when relevant.
22. The landlord to review the case and ensure relevant learning for similar circumstances has been implemented, particularly in respect to communication, updates and engagement with vulnerable residents when a fire occurs at its properties.