London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202105979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105979

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

8 September 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. the building maintenance and fire safety.
2. the service charges and a request for a refund.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block, which is three storeys high.
In 2011, the building was handed over to the landlord by the developer and the resident commenced her tenancy at the property. This investigation understands that the developer covered defects for the first year and that when a defects period expires and a developer goes out of business, a warranty by the National Housing Building Council becomes applicable.
Advice Note 14 was issued by the Government in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material. The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves that their building was safe. This guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020, which suggested that owners should consider the advice irrespective of the building height.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure in which it responds at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy expects complaints to be made within six months of the events they relate to.

Summary of events

In January 2019, the resident raised concern to the landlord that the building had declined over the years, that some planned cyclical works had not yet begun, and that water came into her flat when it rained heavily. She noted that the edges of the building were rusted and the exterior was peeling, and she asked the landlord to inspect the building and update residents about what was happening.
The landlord responded that it had noted external issues during estate inspections and reported these internally. It said that external cyclical decorations were due to take place but it shared concerns the block needed more than just painting. It noted that there had been no reports of water penetration via correct channels and advised that a reminder about this would be sent to all residents.
The resident received correspondence in January and February 2019 from the landlord’s cyclical works contractors that works to carry out internal and external painting, and minor repairs and renewals, was to commence on 11 February 2019. This was shortly followed by correspondence that the building had been omitted from the cyclical works programme and referred to the landlord. The following month, the resident reported that three windows did not close properly and allowed in draught. The landlord’s records say works for these were completed in May 2019.
In April 2019, the resident asked the landlord for an update. It responded in May 2019 that a claim to the National Housing Building Council (‘NHBC’) had been made in respect to external building repairs, and it would contact residents in June 2019 to inspect individual flats. It acknowledged the process was lengthy and frustrating and assured her that issues were in hand. Later in May 2019, the resident contacted her MP about rust, cracks and lack of fire insulation at the building, in addition to issues with taps and a radiator that had arisen after she had moved in.
In June 2019, the landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP. It apologised for any delays and inconvenience rectifying defects in the flat. It explained that a claim had been made to the NHBC about the building exterior, and inspections at individual flats had found there was no significant internal damage or water penetration due to the exterior condition. It said no concerns were raised in the latest fire risk assessment but a new one had been requested in light of residents’ concerns. It said it had written to residents to update them.
In August 2019, the landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP. It said that after it had escalated the building exterior claim, it had been informed that the NHBC would not be pursuing this. It said that in light of this, a technical manager would visit the building with a view to arranging further investigation and works, and it would outline actions it would take after the investigation.
In November 2019, the landlord apologised to residents for a lack of communication after visits from different staff. It advised that in September 2019, its surveyor, a consultant and a contractor had carried out an inspection and identified the following:
1. There were issues with the thin-coat render system on cement particle board, whereby joints had cracked and allowed water in; incorrect beading had been used externally and had rusted; joints were not staggered and had no expansion gaps; and incorrect screws had been used, since they had rusted.
2. The cavity barriers were missing, wrongly installed or incorrectly specified.
3. The cavity closers were missing.
4. There was no damp proof course between the brickwork and timber.
5. There was movement of the timber frame, which meant doors and windows were shifting; there were draughts and water ingress to properties; and there was a report of a cracked window pane at one flat.
6. The fire door sets had become non-compliant.
7. There was extensive cracking to plasterwork, plaster falling from screw heads, and gaps appearing around doorframes.
8. The ‘edge protection’ was only a single brick course.
9. The blockwork driveway had ‘sunk and distorted’ in many areas, which had affected surface drainage to the point metal grilles fell into the drainage channel. This appeared to have led to recent replacement of blockwork with mortar, otherwise the drainage would have had too much movement; and also appeared to have led to replacement of a manhole due to sinkage.
10. The guttering did not extend to the full width of the flat roof, and there was a section on either side where rainwater spilled over the edge and ran down the face of the building.
The landlord said the report had been sent to the NHBC to support its claim, and it reassured residents that there was no need to be alarmed by the wording.
In December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord:
1. She expressed dissatisfaction with the issues and the landlord’s communication. She noted it had seen the number of issues with the building that needed addressing. She added that the walls lacked insulation and support so that it was not possible to attach items like photos and shelves.
2. She noted a letter had said work for the paving and drainage would start on 4 December 2019 and last three days, but was not yet completed.
3. She raised concern about her service charges. She said that there should be a refund for CCTV service charges since the block only had dummy CCTV cameras. She also said there was a charge to replace communal flooring which had never happened.
In January 2020, the landlord responded to the resident and an enquiry from the resident’s MP in several communications. In summary, it said:
1. It was treating the issues as a priority and working to ensure there was a thorough investigation which safeguarded all residents’ health and safety.
2. It apologised that she was dissatisfied with communication and noted a recent update was sent to all residents. It noted staff had discussed the works with individual residents but it would ensure all residents received updates in future.
3. It apologised that it was taking longer than anticipated to progress the works and resolve the issues, due to the complex and lengthy process involved, such as making a claim to the NHBC.
4. It hoped to provide a clearer idea of scope of works, timescales and if the NHBC accepted the claim after a meeting that month with the NHBC.
5. It had highlighted potential issues in individual flats internally and to the NHBC, and there would be inspections of these if required by the NHBC.
6. It was going to carry out an invasive inspection, after which it would produce an action plan and be in a better position to update residents.
7. The driveway had now been repaired and would be checked at that month’s estate inspection.
8. CCTV maintenance costs had been removed and it was unable to refund past charges, as these should be queried on receipt of statements. It had changed a policy not to charge to replace carpet due to the cost implications, and this would be completed under a planned maintenance programme.
On 20 January 2020, independent assessments of the fire risk and fire safety compartmentation at the building were carried out. The findings were provided in reports dated 6 and 7 February 2020:
1. The fire risk assessment found that the overall risk from fire was ‘moderate,’ which reflected that there was medium risk of fire (risk from normal fire hazards for the type of occupancy) and risk of moderate harm (fire could result in injury to one or two occupants but not result in multiple casualties). The assessment included recommendations in respect to fire policy and procedure; removal of communal fire detection; placement of warning signs on communal electrical cupboards; and installation of cavity barriers.
2. The fire safety compartmentation assessment found that the anticipated fire growth rate was ‘medium,’ the second lowest. The assessment included recommendations to place various signs; replace fire doors; and to seal breaches and install fire-stopping materials in respect to communal electrical cupboards, holes around wiring, walls above some front doors, and ceilings above some escape routes.
The reports advised that a schedule and timescale for works should be devised using priority ratings for recommendations to inform the planning process. The reports recommended non-mandatory timeframes for the works. The reports noted that a ‘stay put’ evacuation strategy was in place and made no recommendations to change this.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord informed residents that after a fire contractor inspection, communal works were required and it was advised to check properties and ensure residents knew what to do in event of a fire. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident directly about this.
In February 2020, the landlord updated residents that its claim to the NHBC had been declined, and a visit was taking place as part of a process to procure a contractor and complete internal and external works required at the building. It said required works would be completed in two parts, with internal works in communal areas being done first followed by external works. It said works were anticipated to start in the coming weeks and it would update with exact start dates.
In April 2020, the landlord informed residents that the NHBC had agreed to revise their position about the claim. In the same communication, the landlord advised that it was currently obtaining quotes to replace the building’s cladding with a different system, as a ‘like for like’ replacement was not considered suitable given the building’s timber frame construction. It warned that there were likely to be delays in matters such as obtaining quotations, due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, but it would endeavour to keep residents updated. The landlord said fire safety works were ongoing and that it had requested a further fire risk assessment, which the information provided advises was because it was dissatisfied with the ones carried out in January 2020.
In May 2020, the landlord informed residents that invasive inspections would be taking place, and on 7 May 2020 a further independent fire risk assessment was carried out for which the findings were summarised in a report in June 2020. The report said that the risk from fire in the premises was ‘substantial’ due to the timber construction, combustible cladding, deficiencies in passive fire protection, and inability to enter flats to confirm the suitability of passive fire compartmentation. The report said that the risk could be reduced to ‘moderate’ if the premises moved to a ‘simultaneous’ evacuation policy and changes to the alarm system were made. The report found escape routes and signage to be suitable and identified no issues with these. The report recommended remedial cladding and compartmentation works and advised that a schedule and timescale for these should be devised, using priority ratings to inform the planning process. The report recommended non-mandatory timeframes for the works.
On 10 July 2020, the landlord informed residents that the external cladding was not of the type used on Grenfell Tower but deficiencies were identified with the cavity barriers, the fire-stopping material within the building cavities. It detailed fire safety advice and the change to a ‘simultaneous’ evacuation procedure and advised that while work was being done, it would install a new fire alarm system in communal areas and flats in line with government guidance and advice from its fire engineer. The landlord completed the fire alarm works the same month and carried out some further fire alarm works in October 2020.
In December 2020, the landlord updated residents that progress of a tender process and a funding application meant contractors could be on site by the end of January 2021 to carry out works. The same month, the resident reported that the back door of the property could not be locked and there was a gap at the bottom of the door. The landlord’s records say this was completed as a priority repair the same day, and it has not been disputed the door was repaired.
In January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord after it had attempted to contact her about the preferred colour for a new front door to be installed as part of the works. She said she was more concerned about the building meeting regulations and said she wanted an independent fire inspection. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and explained that two independent fire safety inspections had been carried out in addition to ones by the NHBC, after which it had completed works to install a fire alarm system as advised. It explained that residents’ choice of colours for replacement front doors had been requested as this had been added to the scope of works. It advised that residents would be notified when a start date for the works was received.
In February 2021, the landlord informed residents that a contractor had been awarded a contract for the works and these were anticipated to begin on 15 February 2021. It advised that the contractor had been provided residents’ details to contact them directly about the works.
On 2 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord after scaffold erection and removal of the building cladding which exposed a green mesh underneath, which she took photos of. The resident raised concern about the landlord’s communication and said it should be putting up information about the works in the communal area. She suggested the photos showed she had been right to raise concerns about the standard of the building. She raised concern about the current and past risk of fire to the building and about the landlord’s actions to mitigate this. She asked the landlord to advise what percentage of the block was safe to live in and explain what was taking place and why.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord responded.
1. It explained that after deterioration of the building exterior, concerns were raised about the materials and a latent defect was raised. It detailed that various visual and intrusive inspections and a fire risk assessment were arranged, after which the building was deemed to be habitable and remedial works were recommended. It explained that its normal monthly estate inspections were visual inspections that resulted in referral of identified issues to relevant teams, and it explained that the fire risk assessments it usually carried out did not normally include intrusive inspections.
2. It explained that a claim that was made to the NHBC was rejected in January 2020, and it was then informed in March 2020 that the NHBC had reconsidered matters and decided to accept the claim.
3. It detailed that further inspections were completed and another fire risk assessment was carried out on 7 May 2020, after which it was recommended to change the evacuation procedure and the fire alarm system, which was done in July 2020. It noted that when handed over in 2011, each flat had battery smoke alarms fitted in the kitchen and hallway, and it had installed an automatic opening vent system in 2019 following advice. It advised that fire risk assessments were its property and it currently had no policies to provide information in these to residents.
4. It said it understood residents’ frustration, and it also apologised that a programme of works had not been received. It said it was informed the contractor would communicate directly with residents, as per the email on 4 February 2021, and said it would chase this if the resident confirmed no communication had been received from the contractor.
5. It said it had been informed that the list of works were full external cladding renewal; internal fire stopping and compartmentation; alarm modification; and front entrance door set renewal. It advised that these works were expected to be completed by the end of June 2021.
On 10 March 2021, the resident responded and asked to be provided paperwork and explanation about health and safety; fire assessments; building inspection outcomes; itinerary of the works taking place; and why the works were taking place and what was discovered. She queried why works such as the cladding removal were only now being done, when the landlord had managed the building since 2011 and concerns had been raised for years. She raised concern that the issues had resulted in rust around the edge of the building and windows; fire escapes were not properly thought out; rent had been paid for cameras the landlord had said were dummy cameras; and all residents had experienced problems with balcony doors, boilers and taps. She said that the landlord had been negligent of residents’ safety and needed to take her complaint seriously.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord confirmed it had raised a complaint and provided initial comment on issues the resident had raised:
1. It asked her to clarify what she wanted to know about health and safety and building inspection outcomes.
2. It advised it had contacted relevant departments about fire risk assessments; why works were taking place and what was discovered; why cladding was only being removed in the past year; and the service charges for the CCTV cameras.
3. It noted it had provided an itinerary of works in its email on 4 March 2021.
4. It noted the last works order raised for the resident’s boiler was in 2018; the last works order raised for her taps was in 2019; and a repair for her balcony door in December 2020 was completed and had left doors and locks in full working order.
On 24 March 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint after a call with the resident. This attached copies of its estate grading standards and the May 2020 fire risk assessment:
1. It acknowledged the length of time it took for the works to start at the building, and said it completely understood residents’ frustrations and the effect on their wellbeing. It offered apologies for these.
2. It explained that during monthly estate inspections, issues with the block exterior were identified and reported for rust around windows and balcony doors and cracks to external cladding. It noted that due to the extent of the repairs these were referred to latent defects and planned projects teams, which conducted investigations and a fire risk assessment. It explained these uncovered issues with the cladding, fire breaks and internal fire stopping.
3. It explained that following a fire risk assessment, a new fire alarm system was installed and the evacuation procedure was changed from ‘stay put’ to full evacuation.
4. It explained that the original contractor had gone into liquidation so it had to make a claim to the NHBC, which it was successful with although a very lengthy process. It explained that it then had to tender the project and the appointed contractor had to draw up designs which had to be reviewed by fire engineers. It noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had caused delays in the tender process and works commencement date, but all fire safety and remedial works had now begun.
5. It apologised that the resident felt communication about investigations and the works were poor. It said it had aimed to be transparent and had passed on information to residents when it was made available to staff. It noted that residents were informed that contractors would contact them directly about the programme of works, and it apologised that this did not happen. It said that this had been raised to the relevant department and that due to miscommunication, it had requested fortnightly updates in order to keep residents informed of progress.
6. It advised that a request for revision of CCTV service charges had been made as no CCTV contract was in place for the building. It said a revision would be done by 1 April 2021, which would result in reduction of weekly service charge amounts and any refunds being applied to the rent account.
7. It advised that a surveyor had raised works for a contractor to attend within five days and complete repairs to replace missing drain covers. It said a report for a permanent fix had also been requested and the issue would be monitored at monthly estate inspections.
8. It noted that the resident requested some more information about estate inspections observations, and it attached an estate document to show what these assessed. It explained that its inspections involved visual inspection of communal areas and raising of repairs, health and safety, grounds and cleaning issues. It advised that a communal notice board had an estate grading sheet and a repairs log which noted details of these. It advised that if there were any issues in between estate inspections, residents were encouraged to contact the landlord. It invited the resident to join a monthly inspection in order to provide feedback and help improve services.
9. It noted that the resident had included neighbours’ names in her complaint, and explained they would need to contact the landlord individually if they wished to make a formal complaint.
The landlord escalated the complaint after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response. She detailed her dissatisfaction in an undated letter:
1. She detailed issues with the building and how drain covers constantly came off on the driveway; how edges had rusted; how paint lifted; how wrong materials had been used; how cladding had been fitted to timber; how there had never been adequate fire insulation; and how there had been nothing underneath the building when cladding was removed apart from green mesh.
2. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had only taken action in the past year to address issues at the building to ensure it met current building and safety regulations. The landlord had mentioned the property was visited once a month but had not provided outcomes to its observations. The landlord was aware since the building was signed over about the building’s materials and had disregarded complaints over the years about safety at the block and fittings being in the wrong places. The issues had put residents’ lives at risk; resulted in households sweeping up debris to ensure children played in safety; affected residents’ ability to mutual exchange or purchase their properties; and caused stress and sleep deprivation.
3. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication about its investigations and the works. It failed to respond to email communication in a timely manner and should have been more informative, transparent and communicative, and put notices in the communal area. She was referred to the contractors for the summary of work but was referred back to the landlord. The residents should have been made aware of outcomes to invasive inspections. The landlord’s itinerary outlined works but it should have detailed all the issues to residents and detailed step by step how these would be rectified. The landlord had made requests for information from various departments but all this paperwork should be at hand.
4. She was dissatisfied that while most of the issues at her flat had been dealt with, these had taken a long time. She said ‘two items’ had not been installed correctly so she had to constantly call an engineer; and there had not been sufficient support to re-hang a radiator which fell down as ‘there is nothing between the walls,’ a problem throughout the building. The balcony doors and windows were major concerns, which all flats had reported issues about, and continued to be an issue despite call outs and repairs. The windows did not close properly and caused a risk of burglary.
5. She was dissatisfied with some items the landlord was charging for in the rent, namely landscape replacement that had never been done; CCTV replacement and equipment; and communal flooring. The landlord had charged and continued to charge for dummy cameras in the rent since 2011.
6. She said she sought compensation for the impact of issues on the mental and physical health of her and two other neighbours, whose consent she had obtained to represent.
In March and April 2021, the landlord provided several updates to residents about the progress of works:
1. In March 2021, it advised that the original cladding had been removed, sufficient external insulation had been installed; non-combustible boards were currently being installed over the timber frame; and insulation work was underway in internal communal areas. It explained a communal fire alarm recently sounded due to dust from the removal of communal ceiling.
2. In April 2021, it advised that the works site manager was based at the block while works were being completed and it detailed how to contact them. It later advised that original cladding had been stripped and fire-curb ‘house wrap’ and panels had been installed on all four elevations; fitting of insulation boards on two elevations was underway; front doors had been ordered; a meeting was planned about meter cupboards; works had commenced in respect to escape route fire stopping; and a recent fire risk assessment identified items in communal areas that residents needed to remove.
In April 2021, the resident raised concern to the fire service about the landlord’s handling of issues and forwarded them a copy of the May 2020 fire risk assessment. The landlord subsequently took steps to respond to an enquiry from the fire service about whether the evacuation procedure had been changed to ‘simultaneous evacuation’ in line with the fire risk assessment.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint:
1. It advised that it was satisfied the previous response provided a full and detailed explanation to the resident’s concerns.
2. It advised that the service charges were being reviewed by the relevant team and would be reconciled accordingly.
3. It acknowledged the resident felt it had let her down. It assured her safety and welfare was of the utmost importance. It apologised for delays with issues and repairs being reported. It noted the Covid-19 pandemic had impacted its repairs service and for the past year it had mainly carried out emergency repairs. It advised this was changing as restrictions eased and it was hoped repairs would be carried out in a timely manner and to an acceptable standard.
4. It advised that it would not meet the request for all residents to be compensated for it neglecting its responsibility to provide an adequately safe home and environment under building and fire regulations. It said it had carried out fire risk assessments and taken required action, as it had previously explained.
In June 2021, the landlord provided several updates to residents and the works were subsequently completed that month. The landlord later informed residents that it had been recommended to change the evacuation procedure to ‘stay put’ on completion of the fire proofing works, and it confirmed that a communal notice had been changed to reflect this. The same month, the resident brought her complaint to this Service:
1. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the building safety. The building had unsafe cladding for years; residents were not adequately protected; the ‘stay put’ policy could have resulted in deaths; and concerns raised to the landlord had not been taken seriously until the Grenfell fire.
2. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the building maintenance. The cyclical works that were initially planned were ‘insulting’ in light of prior concerns and if the landlord had taken these seriously, it would have thoroughly investigated them and identified the building fell short of standards. The landlord failed to communicate about changes in the works such as their commencement, cancellation, and reasons for cancellation.
3. She raised dissatisfaction with the information provided by the landlord. She said residents had the right to know about the structure in which they lived, and should be informed about what had been discovered and investigations taking place.
4. She raised dissatisfaction that a charge had been paid for CCTV since 2011 and that the promised April 2021 revision of the service charge had not occurred.
5. She acknowledged that the building issues were now rectified but stated that if the landlord had taken previous reports and complaints seriously, they would have been rectified long ago. She said that the landlord should pay compensation as the issues had caused distress, uncertainty and worry and its negligence had put residents’ lives at significant risk.
In July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about the refund for CCTV service charges being outstanding. In August 2021, the landlord informed residents that a weekly charge of £0.71 had been removed and that each resident would be refunded by £9.94 that they had overpaid. The resident responded that the reimbursement should be more than this, given the landlord had said a contract was never in place for CCTV and there had been charges since 2011. The landlord confirmed that this had been referred internally, and then in October 2021 it confirmed that CCTV service charges since 2011 had been refunded to the amount of £99.40.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident advised that she was complaining on behalf of two other residents. This investigation notes that no other complaints have been brought to this Service. From the evidence seen, the landlord seems reasonable to have advised that the resident’s neighbours should submit individual complaints. The resident did not provide authority from the other residents until her original complaint was progressing through the landlord’s complaints procedure, and provided limited detail about the complaints. This investigation does not therefore consider the complaint from the neighbours, although the findings in this case may be indicative of any findings that would have been made.
The resident’s complaint as set out seems to extend from when she moved into the property in 2011, a timeframe of ten years when the complaint was made. While this investigation understands that the resident is dissatisfied with the maintenance and the safety at the building over ten years, formal complaints are normally expected to be made to a landlord within six months of when they occur. This investigation therefore mainly focuses on events from September 2020, around six months before the resident raised her complaint, to May 2021 when the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted. While they provide important background, events that pre-date the complaints procedure are mainly referenced for contextual purposes.
The resident seeks to be compensated for the impact of events on her and her physical and mental health. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these, and only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions – which this assessment goes on to do.

The building maintenance and fire safety

It is not, as indicated above, in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive determinations about building safety and if a landlord has been negligent of this. The main consideration in this case is whether the landlord acted reasonably after it was evidenced that both the resident and the landlord had concerns about the building, and after it was reasonably established that there were issues with the building.
The evidence advises that after the concerns raised about the building in January 2019, the landlord made a claim to the NHBC by May 2019 in respect to the building exterior, and inspected individual flats in June 2019 to assess if there was any impact on these. This shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm there were issues with the building exterior; to progress rectification of these via applicable channels; and to investigate the impact on its residents.
The evidence advises that in September 2019, the landlord carried out further investigations and in November 2019 informed residents about issues identified with the render system; cavity barriers; cavity closers; damp proof course; timber frame; fire doors; plasterwork; edge protection; driveway; and guttering. The landlord then carried out some driveway works in December 2019 and arranged a fire risk assessment in January 2020, which recommended some actions and found the overall risk from fire to be ‘moderate.’ This shows that the landlord continued to accept its obligations and took appropriate steps to investigate issues after the NHBC declined the claim; detail findings to residents; carry out some works; and review fire safety given issues were identified with the building cavities.
The evidence advises that in May 2020, the landlord arranged for a further fire risk assessment to be carried out, which found the overall risk from fire to be ‘substantial’ and recommended actions, including some specific actions that would lower the risk from ‘substantial’ to ‘moderate.’ The landlord received this report in June 2020 and in July 2020, it completed some fire alarm system works and changed the evacuation procedure from ‘stay put’ to simultaneous evacuation, in line with recommendations to lower the risk from fire to ‘moderate.’ This shows that the landlord took positive and proactive steps to further review fire safety based on its judgement of issues, and then took action to complete works in a timely manner to reduce the identified risk to resident safety.
The evidence advises that in the six months from July 2020, there was limited progress in terms of practical works, but there were some fire alarm works in October 2020; the landlord advised it was progressing tender processes and funding applications in December 2020; and the resident was contacted about door colour preference in January 2021. This shows that the landlord continued to progress works, and the reasons given for the slow progress seem reasonable. This Service recognises the impact the Covid-19 pandemic had on resources across the housing sector, and it is understandable that this may have impacted progress such as obtaining of quotes. The processes for tendering and financing major works are also complex, and this investigation can see there were added complexities due to the involvement of the National Housing Building Council and their refusal then acceptance of the landlord’s claim.
The evidence advises that the landlord confirmed contractors were to commence works in February 2021; scaffold was erected and cladding removed by March 2021; and all works were completed in June 2021, four months later. The works themselves are not the main subject of the complaint and the resident has expressed limited dissatisfaction with these. This shows that the works that were eventually carried out seemed to be completed in a reasonably timely manner, and in a generally appropriate way which gave limited cause for complaint.
When the resident raised concerns and her complaint after commencement of the works, the landlord detailed events and explained what had led to the works. It provided explanation about how it had tried to progress the more major works as quickly as it could, and how it took interim actions in line with fire safety advice to ensure safety was maintained at recommended risk levels. It also explained its approach to more day-to-day maintenance at the block, and provided the May 2020 fire risk assessment within three weeks of the resident’s concerns. This shows that the landlord sought to address the resident’s concerns in some detail and provided relevant information within a timely manner of when she requested this. While the landlord is not specifically obligated to do so, sharing fire risk assessments is encouraged by the Ombudsman, and it was positive that it changed its position about this after initially informing the resident it had no policy to provide such information.
The resident complains that the landlord failed to take seriously, and sufficiently investigate, concerns about the building. The focus of this investigation is on more recent events, however from the evidence seen in the investigation, which includes communal and individual repairs reports since 2011, it is not apparent that specific concerns were raised until January 2019 as noted at paragraph 6 of this report. If concerns were raised to the landlord prior to this, a lack of earlier action would not necessarily constitute a failing, despite the benefit of hindsight in this case. It is normal for a building’s condition to degrade to some extent over time and a landlord will normally programme major works to a building at appropriate intervals, to meet their longer term maintenance obligations. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its professional staff and contractors in respect to the extent of and intervals for any major works.
The resident raises dissatisfaction that the only works the landlord initially planned were cyclical painting works that were scheduled to commence in February 2019. The landlord’s initial intention to carry these out shows it was seeking to fulfil its maintenance obligations, and again does not constitute a failing despite the benefit of hindsight. There seems to have been an appropriate response to concern that these planned works might not adequately fulfil the maintenance required at the building, as shown by the subsequent communication to omit the building from the works programme.
The resident raises concern about the landlord’s handling of fire safety, and about residents’ safety over the past ten years in light of later findings about the building. While understandably concerning to the resident, the fact the building was identified to have a ‘substantial’ risk rating at one point does not constitute a failing in itself, and this investigation’s focus is on what actions were taken when this was identified. The building had a formal ‘substantial’ risk rating for around a month after this was identified, before actions were taken to lower this to a ‘moderate’ risk rating, which shows the landlord acted promptly. This investigation notes that a ‘moderate’ risk from fire is not uncommon, and where this is identified it is common for landlords to manage this risk by carrying out fire risk assessments at yearly intervals. It does not therefore seem inappropriate that the building had an identified ‘moderate’ risk rating for longer periods. This investigation also notes that it is not in the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to determine when precisely works should be done, and notes that while long the timeframes are not dissimilar to other cases where landlords have carried out remedial fire safety works for housing such as high rise blocks.
The landlord’s fire safety checks seem to have been timely, in line with current fire or government guidance or when it has been felt there was basis for them. The landlord’s specific obligations to carry out invasive checks for the resident’s building type was less clear prior to January 2020, when the government issued stronger guidance that such checks should be considered irrespective of building height, and so checks between January and May 2020 seem timely. The resident’s block was a low rise and did not have the same cladding material used on the Grenfell Tower, so does not seem to have been a clear focus for prior guidance and invasive fire risk assessments.
The resident is clearly concerned about the wider health and safety of residents, and fire services are responsible to enforce landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well a landlord is meeting regulatory standards, including wider fire safety obligations (although this Service will refer matters to the Regulator where considered appropriate). This investigation notes that the resident did raise concerns to the fire service, which was qualified to assess matters as set out above, and there is no evidence they raised further concern following their enquiries to confirm a ‘simultaneous’ evacuation procedure was in place in line with the May 2020 fire risk assessment.
The resident raises concern about the landlord’s communication for the investigations and the works. The landlord has not always gone into detail about all it identified, however it seems to have been generally communicative and at relevant points, provided timely updates about claims to the NHBC being pursued in respect to the building exterior; about outcomes to inspections at individual flats; about detailed findings to the inspection in September 2019; about invasive inspections being carried out; about internal and external works being required after fire inspections; about the need to visit the resident in respect to fire safety; about the cladding needing replacement, the cladding not being the same type used on the Grenfell Tower, and the previous cladding being unsuitable for the timber frame; about deficiencies being identified with the cavity barriers; about changes to the evacuation procedure; about new fire alarm systems being fitted; and about the commencement and progress of the works that were eventually carried out.
The resident raises concern about being referred back and forth between the landlord and the contractor. This seems to mainly relate to when the landlord said the contractors were to commence work and had been provided residents’ details to contact them about the works. Here, the landlord and the contractor seem to have misunderstood which party would communicate the scope of works to residents, or the contractor failed to communicate to residents as agreed, either of which was not appropriate. This investigation notes that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this; raised the issue internally; and detailed steps it was taking to provide updates going forward. Accordingly, the landlord seems to have addressed this failing in an appropriate way, although a recommendation is made in respect to this.
The resident raised specific issues with balcony doors, windows, boilers and taps in her property. In the timeframe of the complaint, and from January 2019 (when the resident’s concerns about the building exterior are first documented) to May 2021 (when the landlord provided its final response to the complaint), only reports about a door and window were made to the landlord. The records show the repairs for these reports were completed in a timely manner and the evidence does not show there were significant failings about these.
This investigation can see that the overall timeframe for the works was long. The works were completed two years after the landlord confirmed in May 2019 that it was making a claim to the NHBC; and 11 to 17 months after the respective fire risk assessments. This investigation therefore understands the resident’s frustration that matters were protracted, information may not have been as clear as it could have been, and expectations were not fully managed at times. This investigation also understands the resident’s concerns about safety, living at the building prior to the works being identified, and the impact the issues had on her. This Service understands the worry, uncertainty and disruption the issues may have caused.
The evidence available however gives limited reason to doubt that the landlord’s approach to maintenance and fire safety at the block has not been appropriate. This investigation has not seen any evidence of significant failings or evidence that any significant detriment has arisen. It seems clear that the length of time it took for the landlord to complete the works were due to the complexity of matters; the changing scope of the works; and challenges the landlord faced. The landlord has clearly sought to meet its obligations when issues with the building were identified, and sought to take timely actions to ensure the short-term and long-term safety of the building’s occupants such as the resident. It provided appropriate explanation and information and clearly acknowledged, and sympathised with, the impact on the resident. It seemed reasonable to advise that it would not provide compensation, as there is no specific evidence it is obligated to do so in the circumstances, and as noted above only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision in respect to negligence and damages.
Therefore, while the completion of the works may have been a long and frustrating experience, there is no evidence of significant issues that would lead this Service to find a failing on the part of the landlord, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord overall responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint about building maintenance and fire safety.

The service charges and request for a refund

The evidence advises that in December 2019, the resident raised concern about CCTV service charges since the block only had dummy CCTV cameras, and a charge for communal flooring that had never happened. The landlord responded in January 2020 that CCTV maintenance costs had been removed but it was unable to refund past charges; and that the flooring related to planned carpet works rather than works that had happened.
The evidence then advises that in its stage one complaint response, the landlord said a revision of service charges had been requested, as no CCTV contract was in place, and revisions would be done by 1 April 2021 which would result in a weekly service charge reduction and a rent account refund. The resident then raised the charges again in her escalation, and the landlord’s stage two response in May 2021 confirmed charges were being reviewed and reconciled.
The landlord subsequently confirmed in August 2021, after chasing from the resident, that a weekly service CCTV charge had been removed; and in October 2021 it confirmed that the CCTV charge going back to 2011 had been refunded to what appears to be a total of either £99.40 or £109.34 (depending on whether the October 2021 refund £99.40 was added to or included the August 2021 refund of £9.94).
The landlord initially actioned partial amendments and refunds, and it took four to six months longer than the April 2021 date it provided to process refunds. However, overall the landlord seems to have considered, set out its position and responded to the concerns about service charges in a reasonable way.
The landlord provided reasonable explanation about charges such as the communal flooring, as it is reasonable for it to include estimated charges for future works if the service charges are variable as the resident’s rent statements show. The landlord took steps to make adjustments to the service charge in respect to CCTV when the resident raised these, and it seems to have gone beyond its obligations to refund charges going back to 2011.
The communal repairs records provided reference repairs to CCTV cameras in 2014, so it is not clear that a CCTV service has never been provided to the block. More significantly, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive determinations about the reasonableness of service charges, as there is a separate procedure whereby service charge disputes can be brought to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property) and then to the Upper Tribunal.
In 2018, the Upper Tribunal considered the dispute ‘Marlborough Park Services v Micha Leitner,’ which involved the reasonableness of historic charges from 2007. The Upper Tribunal concluded that payments that have been made over an extended period of time, without protest, amount to an agreement by a payee that the sums were reasonable. This seems applicable to the resident’s circumstances, where she seems to have paid CCTV service charges from 2011 without any protest for an extended period of time.
The landlord’s decision to refund the CCTV charges back to 2011 therefore seems to have been an exercise of discretion beyond its specific legal obligations to do so as set out by the relevant tribunal. This shows that the landlord’s response in respect to the CCTV service charges was positive and customer focused, to an extent which seems to reasonably address any delays and time and trouble the resident experienced for this aspect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the building maintenance and fire safety.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about the service charges and a request for a refund.

Reasons

The landlord sought to meet its obligations when issues with the building were identified and to take timely actions to ensure the safety of the building’s occupants. The landlord provided reasonable explanation, acknowledgement and apology in respect of the impact of the building works. There is no evidence it is obligated to provide compensation in the circumstances.
The landlord provided reasonable explanation about charges which were in line with the approach of the variable and estimated service charges in the resident’s rent statements. The landlord took steps to make adjustments to CCTV charges when the resident raised these. The landlord went beyond its legal obligations to refund CCTV charges that go back to 2011.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to review how it can ensure that before similar works projects, residents are provided communication which clearly sets out the scope of works that are about to commence.