Camden Council (202214331)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214331

Camden Council

21 July 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

1. The complaint is about a request for adaptations to the balcony, including railings and netting, due to safety concerns for the resident’s daughter.

Background

2. The resident lives in a three-bedroom flat on the first floor. The property has balconies over two floors.
3. The resident has an autistic daughter who she says is non-verbal and can display unpredictable behaviour. This detail is important so far as the risk posed by the balcony. Specifically, the resident says her daughter accesses the balcony without the resident’s knowledge and there have been incidents of her daughter throwing objects over the balcony, as well as her attempting to climb over the railing.
4. The resident states that her concerns for her daughter’s safety date back to 2019. She also states that she raised her concerns about the balcony, but the landlord said it met all safety regulations. The resident spoke to the landlord about her daughter’s autism and that she felt the balcony posed a risk. Following a survey done by a third-party, a chain lock was fitted to the balcony door, which the resident states was a suitable fix when her daughter was much younger.
5. In 2020, the resident’s concerns about the safety increased, as her daughter was able to open the chain lock. The resident stated that she spoke with an Occupational Therapist about her concerns, and they contacted the landlord about installing a safety net to the balcony, but the request was declined.
6. On 25 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to consider her suggestion to install a wire mesh safety net, similar to those in neighbouring flats. The resident said she had asked for help from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (‘CAMHS’) and her Occupational Therapist (OT). The resident advised that the services echoed her concerns about the balcony and the potential risk it posed.
7. The landlord advised the resident that the wire mesh would not be suitable, as it was not strong enough to stop the risk and was designed to keep pigeons out. It advised that the only proper solution would be to instal metal railings, but this would require planning permission from the council’s planning team. The landlord sought guidance on this. The advice it received was that the application would most likely be declined as it would create a ‘cage’ and would detract from the architecture of the building which had been ‘thoughtfully designed’. Further options were to look at re-housing the resident and her family to a ground floor flat or replacing the balcony door with a different locking mechanism.
8. The evidence shows there were internal communications regarding the proposed options. The parties acknowledged that it would take time to re-house the resident. The landlord advised the resident to make a housing application and bid normally, as well as register for home swap. It also stated that the resident was responsible for ensuring her daughter is supervised when on the balcony.
9. The resident logged a complaint on 1 July 2022. She said the balcony was a safety hazard and had asked the landlord to put in place safety measures, but this had been refused. She also stated that no additional points were awarded to prioritise her housing application. The resident stated she remained fearful for her daughter and that she had medical evidence to support the risks posed.
10. The landlord responded on 22 July 2022. It advised that the planning department would not agree to metal railings and the wire mesh was not suitable. It stated the resident’s options were to move to a ground floor property, or one with no balcony. It said the resident would need to make a housing application or mutually exchange. Lastly, it told the resident that extra parental care was required whilst her daughter was on the balcony.
11. The resident remained unhappy and on 2 September 2022, she asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord responded on 4 October 2022. It stated that whilst it was sympathetic, it was unable to uphold the complaint. It advised that the suggestion of netting or wire had been determined as not suitable, and that planning permission for a metal cage/bar was ‘unlikely’ to be granted. It advised it could consider better locks, and for the resident to contact it if she wanted this. The landlord went onto say she could submit further medical evidence to be considered for additional medical points if things got worse. It advised that the most likely option would be a mutual exchange.
12. The workmen attended on the 19 October 2022 to change the locking mechanism. The resident says the contractors left the property without completing the work after advising her that a specialist lock was required. This Service asked the landlord about this and was advised that they were unable to change the locks because it would breach the fire safety regulations, and as such, were unable to carry out the changes
13. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision and brought her complaint to this Service. The outcome the resident is seeking, is for the adaptations to be made to the balcony.

Assessment and findings

14. The tenancy agreement allows the resident to improve or adapt the property. Specifically, it states that a resident will need to get permission from the landlord in writing as well as any relevant planning permission first. The landlord must not unreasonably refuse consent, but it will be dependent on meeting certain requirements. When considering a request, the landlord is required to take the following into account:
    1. That the request meets fire and emergency and planning guidelines
    2. That it has received planning permission and building control sign off
15. The resident has asked for permission to change the property for the safety of her daughter. The Ombudsman recognises the significant worry and heartache the resident must feel about the situation she is in.
16. However, the landlord has considered several options, including;
    1. Wire mesh – which it said was not suitable as this was to prevent pigeons.
    2. Bars – on this it sought the advice of the planning department who said it was unlikely to agree planning based on the design of the building.
    3. Installing a lock on the door – it later said it could not do this due to fire safety.
    4. Rehousing the resident – this is not a short term – but a longer-term solution.
17. Whilst the landlord has sought advice on whether planning permission would be granted – the housing department has not actually made a formal request for permission. Secondly, it does not appear the landlord has signposted the resident to the council’s occupational health department for an assessment and recommendations. This service would have expected it to do so based on the potential risk being presented.
18. Whilst the landlord has referred to ‘fire safety’ as a reason for not allowing additional locks – it is not clear from the evidence presented what locks it considered and how these will have contravened fire safety provisions. Moreover, the resident advised that when the landlord’s contractors attended, they left without completing the works and never updated her. Which will have been distressing. That is a failure.
19. The Ombudsman is concerned for the safety of this little girl, and this is causing considerable worry for the resident, her mother. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers there is more to do by the landlord.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord. Primarily this relates to failing to signpost the resident for a full occupational therapist assessment and for failing to demonstrate its reasons for not changing the locks and updating the resident.

Orders

21. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination, pay the resident £100 compensation for the failures identified.
22. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination, write to the resident and offer to arrange a multi-agency meeting site meeting. In arranging this, the landlord should invite the following parties the CAMHS treating clinician, children’s services, an Occupational Therapist, a housing manager, as well as someone who is a fire safety expert and someone from the council’s planning department. The purpose of the meeting is to determine what measures can be taken to prevent the resident’s daughter from harm. This should include a full assessment of any changes that can be made in the property, to the door and/or to the balcony.
23. The Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that it has written to the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination offering the site meeting. Where the resident agrees, the landlord will be required to use all reasonable endeavours to arrange the meeting within 28 days of the date of the resident’s acceptance. The landlord must provide evidence of its contact with the other agencies and of the date set. This evidence must be provided within 28 days of the date of this determination if the resident accepts the offer.