The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Waltham Forest Council (202005257)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005257

Waltham Forest Council

22 March 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it refrain from installing a fire door as part of its kitchen renewal works.

Background and summary of events

  1. On a date unknown the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. In this he said that:
    1. Many years ago he had been given permission by the landlord to install an archway between his kitchen and hallway. He had now been told that he had to have a fire door installed in order for the new kitchen installation to go ahead.
    2. He understood that there was no legislation requiring a fire door in this location and building regulations did not require a fire door to be fitted retrospectively.
    3. The landlord used to allow tenants to sign a waiver/disclosure form regarding fire doors if they did not want one.
    4. His bathroom floor was damaged when samples were taken and this needed to be replaced.
  2. The landlord provided a stage one response on 12 June 2020. In this it said that:
    1. Whilst there may not be a legal requirement to install a fire door to the kitchen, as best practice and in line with current health and safety and fire regulations, it had decided to install fire doors to all kitchens when they were refurbished.

 

  1. It did not accept a waiver or disclosure form in these circumstances as all kitchens must have a fire door fitted. Failure to allow a fire door to be fitted would result in the kitchen not being refurbished.
  2. Damage to the bathroom floor occurred due to asbestos samples being taken. This was due to be renewed just before the coronavirus pandemic however due to the restrictions in place it had not been possible to replace this. It understood that the contractor had now spoken with the resident and advised that as soon as the restrictions had been lifted they would be in touch to arrange the works.
  3. The complaint had not been upheld. It was sorry that this was not the answer that the resident was looking for however the safety of its customers must come first.
  1. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint. In this he said that:
    1. He installed the archway 20-25 years ago.
    2. He wanted to know whether the landlord would inform tenants their waiver was null and void and they had to have a fire door installed.
    3. If safety was important, why was he being told he could not have his kitchen refurbished if a fire door was not installed.
    4. He did not believe it was viable to install a fire door given the design of the property and the landlord was able to inspect his home to confirm this.
    5. Another tenant had had their living room door removed to enable heating works to be signed off.
  2. The landlord provided a stage two response on 20 July 2020. In this it said that:
    1. It had checked its records and it had not been able to trace a copy of the permission to install an archway. It did not dispute that the resident had permission for this but it could not ignore the fact that standards had greatly changed since then or that previous permissions may be rescinded.
    2. Building Regulations were the minimum standards set when buildings were first constructed or later adapted. They did not preclude the landlord from introducing more improved standards. Kitchens were high risk rooms for fires in homes so the decision was made that fire doors would be installed.
    3. Although safety was the foremost reason for the installation of the fire doors, by replacing them in the current kitchen refurbishment programme it was also cost effective. It was reasonable to install a fire door now, while it was carrying out similar works in the area, rather than having to carry out the works between tenants.
    4. As safety was paramount, waivers were not permissible.
    5. The resident had referred to the layout of other properties and a contractor insisting that a door be removed in one. However, each property’s layout was assessed individually.
    6. A pre-inspection of the property was carried out by its contractor on 11 March 2020 and they had not raised any issues with removing the arch and installing a fire door.
    7. If the resident refused to have the fire door installed then this would be referred back to the Tenant Management Organisation as they managed the tenancy. It had checked the terms of conditions of the tenancy agreement and section 3.6 stated ‘The Council is entitled to improve or alter any part of your home which it has a responsibility to repair’.
    8. The resident was able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman should he be dissatisfied with the response.
  3. The resident subsequently referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He has told the Ombudsman that if his kitchen is not replaced then he requires the landlord to either reimburse him the cost of replacing the damaged flooring in his bathroom and kitchen (which samples have been taken from), or to replace the flooring.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement

  1. Section 2.2 and section 2.3 of the tenancy agreement confirm that the landlord has a number of repairing obligations in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes an obligation to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. Section 3.6 of the tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is entitled to improve or alter any part of the property which it has a responsibility to repair.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s repairing obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 do not extend to the non-structural elements of the property such as the internal doors. As the tenancy agreement only grants the landlord a right to carry out improvements or alterations to the parts of the property it is responsible for repairing, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord does not have a right to install a fire door to the kitchen. Given this, the resident is under no obligation to provide access for these works.
  2. Building Regulations are not retrospective in nature but may apply to aspects of renovation works in a residential property. As the resident has highlighted, there is no requirement under Building Regulations to install a fire door to a kitchen. The landlord did not dispute this in its complaint responses.
  3. Therefore, the issue under consideration is whether the landlord’s decision to decline to carry out the kitchen renewal works on the basis that the resident had refused the installation of the fire door, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Ultimately there is nothing stopping the landlord from deciding not to renew the kitchen for this reason as it is under no contractual or statutory obligation to renew the kitchen. It is also understandable that the landlord wants to install fire doors in its properties to improve fire safety. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of this matter and the Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to install the kitchen.
  4. However, it is also understandable that the resident did not want the fire door installed given that this requires the removal of the archway he installed in the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord was heavy handed in insisting that the fire door had to be installed in order for the kitchen renewal works to go ahead given that Building Regulations do not require the installation of a fire door in this location. It is also not clear that the landlord has considered whether it would be more cost effective to renew the kitchen now and install the door when the property becomes empty, rather than postponing all the works to a later date. It is therefore recommended that the landlord gives further consideration to this matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the kitchen renewal works.

Reasons

  1. It is understandable that the landlord wants to install fire doors in its properties to improve fire safety, and there was nothing stopping it from declining to renew the kitchen on the basis that the resident had not agreed to the fire door being installed. However, it is also understandable that the resident does not want the fire door installed given that this requires the removal of the archway he installed in the property. Recommendations have therefore been made.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord does the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. reconsiders its position on carrying out the kitchen renewal works given the points raised in this report and confirms its decision on the matter to the resident in writing
    2. arranges the flooring renewal works in the bathroom if they are still outstanding
    3. considers whether it will replace the flooring in the kitchen (given that the resident says samples have also been taken from this) and confirms its position on this to the resident in writing