One Housing Group (202001816)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001816

One Housing Group

21 January 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 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 response to:
1. A fire in the resident’s property
2. The resident’s request for re-housing

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a one-bedroom flat situated in a purpose-built block (the building).

Summary of events

On 13 November 2019 at approximately 1:30am there was a fire in the property which was attended to by the fire brigade.
On 29 November 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding the fire. In summary the resident said:
1. She was woken from her sleep by a “sound” in the hallway and the “smell of smoke”. The resident explained that on investigation she discovered a fire which was coming “directly from the fuse box in the hall”. The resident confirmed that on escaping the property she called the fire brigade.
2. She believed that the fire was due to the landlord’s “inadequate, unlawful and dangerous housing conditions”.
3. The smoke alarm in the property did not sound. The resident stated that the landlord installed the smoke alarm and therefore it was responsible for maintaining and repairing it. The resident noted that “UK fire safety legislation” required landlords to ensure that smoke alarms were installed in their properties “with effect from 1 October 2015” and were in “working order at the start of each new tenancy”. The resident also noted that the landlord was required to provide carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers.
4. Since the start of her tenancy the electrics in the property had not been inspected. The resident noted that under the terms of the property’s tenancy agreement the landlord was required to maintain and repair electrical wiring, including sockets and switches. The resident added that “by law a periodic inspection should take place to check the condition of an existing electrical installation against BS7671 – the UK standard for the safety of electrical installations”.
5. The fire brigade installed smoke alarms in the neighbour’s property “within hours” of the incident which indicated the “poor standard of fire safety”.
6. The communal smoke alarm, smoke detectors and emergency door did not work. The resident confirmed that she had to alert neighbours to the fire by banging on their doors.
7. The fire had “caused significant loss in every area of [her] life”. The resident stated that all her possessions were destroyed.
8. The landlord’s surveyor had advised her to make a claim on her contents insurance for her possessions. The resident said that this was unfair as the fire was not her fault.
9. The landlord provided hotel accommodation at 4pm on 13 November 2019. The resident stated that on multiple occasions, prior to its offer of accommodation at the hotel, the landlord asked her if she could stay with family while the property was made good. The resident said that the suggestion was “absurd” and should not have been an option.
10. The landlord provided misleading and contradictory information regarding the subsistence allowance she was entitled to while staying in the hotel and the payments had been delayed. The resident noted that she had incurred additional parking charges for her car while staying at the hotel.
11. The landlord had shown little support or assistance following the fire. The resident said that the landlord’s communication had also been poor.
12. Due to the incident she was “experiencing serious emotional and psychological distress”. The resident said she was “traumatised”, and she had been unable to return to work, including as she had “no suitable clothes or shoes to wear”.
13. She could not and would not return to the property.
14. While the landlord had offered temporary accommodation she would “not sign any decant or temporary housing agreement with the expectation [she] return to [the property]”.
The resident concluded by confirming that she would like to be re-housed in “safer permanent accommodation… fully compensated for [her] destroyed possessions… and [the landlord’s] criminal negligence, unprofessionalism, emotional turmoil and all financial losses…”.
On 9 January 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Its response time was extended by agreement with the resident in order for it to provide a comprehensive response to the complaint.
2. It acknowledged the distress the fire must have caused the resident and it was sorry that it occurred.
3. In respect of smoke detectors:
  1. The smoke detector installed in the property was a “hardwired” mains powered alarm connected to the power supply with a battery backup.
  2. Where the power supply fails to a hardwired alarm the batteries would take over and cause the alarm to sound if smoke was detected.
  3. At this time it was “unaware of what caused the fire” or whether the batteries in the smoke alarm detected smoke in the property.
4. In respect of the communal fire alarm:
  1. As the building was purpose built there was “no requirement for a fire or smoke detector within the common parts”.
  2. Its Fire Risk Assessment highlighted that there was a fire alarm panel within the block however it had been de-commissioned as it was not legally required.
1. In respect of fire extinguishers:
  1. As the building was purpose built there was no requirement for portable fire extinguishers and therefore they had not been provided.
1. In respect of the electrical system in the property:
  1. A full electrical installation condition report (EICR) was completed in 2017 which recorded the property as “satisfactory”. The landlord confirmed that on receipt of the complaint its electrical supervisor had reviewed the EICR and “deemed the readings and testing as described in the report to be safe and in accordance with the regulations”.
  2. The EICR test was undertaken every five years in line with good practice.
  3. The EICR covered the fuse board and associated fittings.
1. In respect of its communication:
  1. The property manager had been in constant contact with the resident since the fire to offer support and assistance, including her subsistence payments.
1. In respect of the decant:
  1. The resident had been in contact with the lettings team.
  2. Before a decant was authorised a surveyor must attend the property and assess whether it was uninhabitable. The landlord explained that if the property was uninhabitable the surveyor will specify the works required and timeframe which will inform the decant.
  3. On receipt of the surveyor’s report on 13 November 2019 the lettings team contacted the resident to explain the decant options available, confirming that the works to make good the property would take six to eight weeks to complete. The landlord confirmed that the options were stay with family/ friends, hotel accommodation or staying in an empty property.
  4. The family/ friends option was offered as “often residents prefer this”. The landlord explained that the option was not intended to frustrate the resident.
  5. From 13 November 2019 the resident had stayed in the hotel.
  6. It was sorry for any confusion regarding subsistence. The landlord confirmed that the resident had been offered a £15 per day allowance and to date she had received £735.
  7. It had reimbursed the resident for carparking for 14 days at £8 per day.
  8. It was sorry for any delay in payments, noting that subsistence was paid in arrears.
  9. While the resident was staying at the hotel, a property became available for the resident as a temporary decant. The landlord confirmed that the resident viewed the property on 19 November 2019 however said that she would only accept it on a permanent basis. The landlord confirmed that the resident was informed that it could not offer the property on a permanent basis as her housing need was for a one-bedroom property and the property had two bedrooms.
1. In respect of insurance
  1. It was only responsible for building insurance and not home contents insurance.
  2. The resident had been advised to claim on her own home contents insurance policy for damage to her personal belongings.
1. Further investigations were ongoing as to the cause of the fire with a loss adjuster and its insurance team and surveyor.

On 31 January 2020 the resident requested to escalate her complaint as she was “unhappy and unsatisfied” with the landlord’s response. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had sent its response to the property despite knowing that she was staying at the hotel.
2. The fire alarm in the property did not sound in response to the fire.
3. The installation of a fire alarm in the neighbour’s property was “a very factual indicator that some detectors [within the building were] inadequate and not functioning”.
4. Landlords were required to ensure that smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms were installed in the properties that it owned “by law”. The resident stated that there was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property.
5. Regardless of the EIRC the fuse box was “clearly faulty and old”.
6. She was unable to easily alert other residents to the fire as there was no functioning communal fire system.
7. The communication by the lettings team had been “very unprofessional and very insulting”. The resident stated that one officer “sighed as a sign of irritation” that she been put through to them.
8. It took several days before the property manager contacted her regarding the fire. The resident noted that she appreciated the property’s manager communication however.
9. She had informed the landlord on many occasions that she did not want to return to the property due to trauma and therefore she declined its offer of temporary accommodation. The resident confirmed that she wished to be re-housed permanently.
10. The landlord challenged why she was unable to stay with family or friends.
11. The landlord’s suggested option of staying in an empty property was incorrect as it had offered to carpet and furnish the property.
12. While the surveyor may have indicated six to eight weeks to complete the work within their report she had spoken to the contractor who had estimated “around six months”. The resident noted that she had been in the hotel for two months and works had not started.
13. The landlord had provided misinformation initially regarding the subsistence payments she was entitled to while staying in the hotel. The resident said that initially the landlord told her that she was not entitled to any payments.
14. She had “suffered extensive loss to all of [her] possessions and contents”. The resident said that she had reluctantly contacted her insurance provider who was in the process of disposing the content of the property. The resident said that her insurer would be recovering the costs from the landlord as the fire was as a result of the faulty fuse box. The resident noted that she had the received a copy of the incident reporting system report from the fire brigade and verbal confirmation from the “consultant scientist” that the fire was due to the fusebox.
15. She would like clear information as to next steps, including her living arrangements.
The resident concluded by confirming that she was seeking the following remedies:
1. New permanent accommodation.
2. A letter of apology from the landlord accepting responsibility for the fire.
3. Reimbursement for damage to all contents and personal possessions.
4. Compensation for psychological distress and criminal negligence.
On 17 February 2020 the resident’s solicitor (the solicitor) wrote to the landlord in respect of its stage one response. The solicitor reiterated the resident’s escalation request, noting that the incident had impacted on her health and wellbeing. The solicitor also noted that since the fire the resident had identified that two items had been stolen – a large box of soap powder and an i-phone – which had been reported to the police.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of smoke detectors and the communal fire alarm:
  1. The fire risk assessment of the building stated that, as the building was purpose built with the properties having a “stay put policy” in the event of a fire, the existing communal alarm was not required and was therefore decommissioned.
  2. Each property should have its own battery operated smoke detector installed. The landlord said that it was a resident’s responsibility to change the batteries as it would not be aware of the battery conditions within a property.
  3. A carbon monoxide alarm is installed in a property where there is a live gas supply. The landlord confirmed that the property’s heating and hot water systems were electric and therefore there was no gas in the property.
1. In respect of the electrical system in the property:
  1. The EICR was completed in 2017 and had been reviewed by its Electrical Supervisor and Electrical Manager as part of the complaint investigation and found that it was “a good certificate”.
  2. It was not in a position to confirm the cause of the fire at this time. The landlord said “concerning the report – although initial findings [had] been looked at, the appointed contractor… [had] not completed the investigation”.
1. In respect of insurance:
  1. Its policy set out that the items inside the property were the resident’s and therefore needed to be covered by contents insurance. The landlord apolgoised for the resident’s loss however stated that it wasn’t a cost it would bear.
1. In respect of compensation:
  1. It would not look at final compensation figures until the investigation had been completed.
1. In respect of the decant:
  1. As the surveyor advised that the works to make good the property would take six to eight weeks it did not meet the threshold for a permanent move. The landlord noted that it had not had confirmation from the contractor that the works would take longer than six months.
  2. The resident was given hotel accommodation “as an immediate measure”.
  3. Temporary accommodation was offered but declined by the resident.
  4. Staying with family/ friends was suggested as an option for the resident as it had been used in the past by other residents. The landlord apolgoised that the resident was frustrated by its suggestion.
  5. Taking into account the resident’s concerns regarding her mental health, the fact that she had been in the hotel since November 2019 and that the works to make good the property were yet to be resolved it had agreed to offer the resident a discretionary management transfer. The landlord noted that the transfer was subject to a review of the resident’s rent account which was in arrears.
1. In respect of communication:
  1. It was sorry for any poor communication by its officers.
1. In respect of subsistence:
  1. As the resident was staying in the hotel she had been receiving £15 a day for food, with breakfast being provided for by the hotel.

The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response.
On 24 March 2020 the resident moved to new temporary accommodation – a serviced apartment.
On 17 April 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s final response. The resident said that while she was happy with the landlord’s offer of a discretionary management transfer she had “several issues and disagreements” with its final response. In summary the resident said:
1. The tenancy agreement for the property clearly stated that hardwired smoke detectors fell under the landlord’s responsibilities.
2. She had not been provided with, or signed, any paperwork during her tenancy in respect of an electrical inspection.
3. The fuse box had not been checked or serviced while she was the tenant of the property.
4. The landlord had not shared any reports detailing its investigation of the fire and cause.
5. She would be seeking compensation in respect of the fire and the impact upon her.
6. The temporary accommodation offered in November 2019 was not suitable as she had informed the landlord from the outset that she did not wish to return to the property.
7. Any rent arrears on her account were due to advice given by the landlord to cancel her direct debit following the fire as she would not be living there.
8. The landlord’s communication had been poor and on occasions unhelpful. The resident stated that the property manager only contacted her a week after the fire had happened.
9. The landlord had tried to “persuade” her to stay with family or friends after the fire.
10. She stayed in the hotel from 13 November 2019 until 24 March 2020. The resident stated that if the works to make good the property were going to take less than six months why was she at the hotel for so long.
11. Breakfast was not provided by the hotel.
12. She had to pay £3 per day for wi-fi for the duration of her stay at the hotel.
13. Due to the fire she had to purchase “provisions such as clothes, shoes, and toiletries”.
On 29 May 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s letter. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had spoken with its insurance team and the resident’s request for costs incurred was being considered by its insurance team as part of her on-going claim. The landlord confirmed that in relation to the resident’s personal belongings its advice remained that she should make a claim on her contents insurance.
2. Its electrical team undertake an electrical check, the EICR, every five years which included checking hardwired alarms. The landlord confirmed that the EICR was completed for the property in 2017 and the next check was due in 2022.
3. Residents were advised to check their smoke alarm every month to ensure it worked.
4. The resident was paid subsistence for the duration of her stay at the hotel. The landlord confirmed that the subsistence was designed to be supplementary and was not expected to cover all of the resident’s food costs.
5. It had refunded the resident £154 for parking at the hotel.
6. The resident had not provided receipts to demonstrate wi-fi costs, however on receipt of proof of the costs it would be able to make a payment.
7. Its lettings team continued to seek a suitable property for the resident as a permanent residence.
The landlord concluded by reiterating that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
In May 2020 the landlord made the resident an offer of permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s new tenancy commenced in August 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to a fire in the property

A fire risk assessment for the property was completed prior to the fire in March 2019. The Ombudsman notes the following findings which are relevant to the complaint:
1. The risk rating for the building is low [1] and the risk to life from fire is tolerable [2].
2. The emergency protocol for the building is “stay put” and “suitable and sufficient” notices are present documenting the protocol.
3. In response to the question “is there a satisfactory means of raising the alarm in the event of a fire” the report confirms that “according to the fire safety in purpose built blocks of flats guide, an automatic fire alarm system is not necessary for this premise”. The report notes that there “is an old fire alarm panel in the main entrance that has been decommissioned”.
4. In response to the question “reasonable provision of portable fire extinguishers” the report confirms “according to fire safety in purpose built blocks of flats guide, portable fire extinguishers are not necessary for this premise”.
5. In response to the question “are fire drills carried out at appropriate intervals” the report confirms “fire drills not required for this premise – appropriate signage is present in common areas and information is given to residents upon occupation”.
In response to the resident’s concern regarding the lack of a communal fire alarm system within the building the landlord confirmed that there was no requirement for one. As the fire risk assessment confirms that an automatic fire alarm system is not necessary for the building, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s response was appropriate, noting that the fire risk assessment will have been undertaken by an appropriately qualified person.
It is not disputed that the property had a smoke alarm installed in the property. The resident states that the smoke alarm did not sound in response to the fire and therefore asserts that the it was faulty which was due to negligence by the landlord. The landlord disputes that it was negligent as it had installed a smoke alarm in the property, as it was required to do, and the resident was responsible for maintaining the batteries within it.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the fire alarm sounded in response to the fire as there is no conclusive evidence in this regard and the Ombudsman was not present. The Ombudsman has therefore considered if the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the smoke alarm was reasonable or not, as set out above.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord shall keep in repair and proper working order any installation provided by it including “hard wired smoke detectors”. The landlord’s information on repairs sets out that it is a resident’s responsibility to change batteries in a smoke alarm inside a property. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported concerns regarding the condition of the smoke alarm prior to the complaint. Therefore as the landlord had not been informed of a need for repair, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to set out that it was the responsibility of the resident to change batteries in the smoke alarm in the property and to test that it worked.
In June 2020 the Government introduced new regulations which require landlords to have the electrical installations in its properties inspected and tested by a qualified and competent person at least every five years – to procedure an EICR report. Prior to the introduction of the regulation in 2020 the landlord had produced an EICR for the property. The landlord has provided a copy of the EICR which the most recently undertaken before the fire and dated 6 September 2017. The Ombudsman notes the following details from the report:
1. Reason for producing this report – safety check on fixed wiring and permanent accessories.
2. Summary of the condition of the installation – wiring and accessories in good condition.
3. Overall assessment of the installation – satisfactory
4. Observations categorised C3 – meaning recommendation should be given “due consideration” – (i) fuse board made of plastic and (ii) consumer unit – condition of enclosure in terms of fire rating.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings in the report to determine that the wiring and accessories in the property were in a good condition as the report was undertaken by an appropriately qualified expert and later checked by the Electrical Manager as part of the complaint procedure . While the Ombudsman notes two items with C3 rating, the Ombudsman also notes that the items are recommendations only, and not directions that the landlord was required to complete. This also takes into account that the report concluded that the overall assessment of the electrics in the property was satisfactory, identifying no items as “dangerous” or “potentially dangerous”.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding damage to personal belongings the landlord referred the resident to make a claim on her insurance policy. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of the insurance claim, as this Service cannot determine liability, the Ombudsman will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue an insurance claim.
The tenancy agreement for the property sets out that:
1. The landlord does not insure the contents of the property or the tenant’s personal belongings.
2. The tenant needs to take out their own insurance to cover their belongings against risks such as theft, fire and flood.
3. The landlord will not take responsibility for damage to the tenant’s belongings under any circumstances.
In line with the terms of the tenancy agreement it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue a claim on her insurance policy. This also takes into account that the landlord denied that it had acted negligently.
The landlord has confirmed that the cause of the fire was from the fuse box. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that the fire was due to negligence by the landlord or an omission by it.
While the resident is not satisfied with the landlord’s communication following the fire, the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall its communication was appropriate. The Ombudsman can see that immediately following the fire the landlord took steps to assist the resident, including by providing emergency accommodation in the hotel, offering temporary accommodation and discussing subsistence. Further the Ombudsman can see that the landlord apologised for any incidents of poor communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate to recognise that the resident felt that the service she had received was below expected standards and to therefore put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-housing

The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will arrange a temporary decant where a property has unexpectedly become uninhabitable and make good works are required to restore it which does not involved significant alteration or demolition. As the property became uninhabitable following the fire it was appropriate that the landlord engaged its decant policy.
Immediately following the fire, and on 13 November 2019, the landlord arranged emergency accommodation for the resident at the hotel. On the 19 November 2019 the landlord offered the resident a two-bedroom property as a temporary decant for the duration of the works to make good the property. This was in line with the landlord’s decant policy.
In response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation on a permanent basis the landlord initially refused the request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision was reasonable as it anticipated that the property could be restored within a reasonable period of time (eight weeks) following confirmation from the surveyor, the property met the resident’s needs and the landlord was under no obligation to provide alternative accommodation on a permanent basis.
The landlord’s decant policy also sets out that where a resident is temporarily decanted to a hotel with no cooking facilities the landlord will pay a daily food allowance of £15 per day per household member. The evidence shows that the resident received this payment for the duration of her stay at the hotel which was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised concern over the information provided by landlord regarding subsistence.
In considering the resident’s complaint the landlord overturned its decision to not provide alternative accommodation on a permanent basis. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as the resident explained that she was unable to return to the property due to trauma and because the works to make good the property had not yet commenced. As set out in paragraph 32 above, the landlord’s initial decision to refuse the request was reasonable.
While the resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s suggestion that she stay with family or friends following the fire, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s suggestion was not unreasonable. This is because the landlord explained why it had put forward the option, from past experience other residents had preferred this option. Further the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord forced the option on the resident or suggested that if she did not agree it would not provide other temporary accommodation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to:
1. A fire in the property
2. The resident’s request for re-housing

Reasons

The Ombudsman understands that the situation that the resident found herself in must have been distressing for her. However the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that the landlord acted negligently in respect of fire safety in the property. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had an up to date fire risk assessment completed for the property in March 2019 and form EICR identified that the electrical installations in the property were satisfactory.
The landlord’s advice to the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance for damage caused to her personal items, due to the fire, was in line with the tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s communication with the resident in respect of the fire was appropriate. Immediately following the fire the landlord took steps to assist the resident, including by providing emergency accommodation in the hotel, offering temporary accommodation and discussing subsistence. Further the Ombudsman can see that the landlord apologised for any incidents of poor communication.
The landlord’s initial decision to not offer a management move following the fire was in accordance with its decant policy. It was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to later change its decision, and offer a management move, taking into account the works to make good the property had not yet commenced and the resident’s health following the fire.
The landlord awarded subsistence payments in accordance with its decant policy.

[1] Low – meaning “unusually low likelihood of fire, as a result of negligible potential sources of ignition.

[2] Tolerable – meaning “no major additional fire precautions required, however there might be a need for reasonably practicable improvements that involve minor or limited costs”.