Ombudsman finds ‘cumulative failures’ by London housing association to address fire safety issues in flat

The Housing Ombudsman has made a severe maladministration finding for Wandle Housing Association after it failed to confirm whether the doors in a resident’s flat were fire-rated or needed replacing, despite numerous visits to the property.

The Ombudsman described Wandle’s failures in addressing fire safety issues in the resident’s flat as ‘cumulative’, and the landlord has been ordered to pay £700 in compensation.

The woman behind the complaint, who had recorded vulnerabilities including autism and Asperger’s Syndrome, first requested confirmation that all the doors were fire doors upon moving in following a mutual exchange, the report notes.

However, four visits later over a period of nine months and the landlord still had not clarified, prompting the resident to send another letter seeking confirmation. Feeling this was a fire safety issue, the resident also voiced concerns about the front door missing a fire strip and not fitting the frame, the Ombudsman revealed.

The South London resident then raised a stage one complaint, in response to which the landlord said it would assess the doors in the property, the report stated.

However, subsequent visits from the landlord “still did not establish whether or not the doors in the property were fire doors” and the resident wanted to know whether the landlord had responsibility for fixing the faulty doors she had previously raised concerns about, the Ombudsman found.

The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two, and arranged for a window and door survey to be carried out and to finish works which were incomplete. The survey found that the front door required a new fire door, that a new fire door was needed for the lounge and that other door defects needed repairing, the report revealed.

The Ombudsman noted that at the end of this process, 18 months after the resident had first moved in, the landlord had still not replaced the front door.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that while the landlord rectified the matter by arranging a door survey, “there was a delay in addressing the fire safety issue raised by the resident – a fundamental area of the landlord’s responsibilities”.

It was also said in the report that the landlord initially treated the issue as a responsive repair, rather than a fire safety issue.

Considering the legal framework, the Ombudsman noted that landlords are responsible under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for “ensuring the safety of their tenants and making sure that their properties are fire safe”.

Under Article 17 of the 2005 order, there needs to be a suitable regime to maintain fire safety equipment. This includes fire doors.

The Ombudsman noted that the inspection at mutual exchange was “unsatisfactory” as the missing kitchen door should have been picked up, adding that the “cumulative failures” meant the fire safety issues in the resident’s home went “unaddressed for a significant period and caused her worry and frustration”.

The Ombudsman also found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, as “while a relevant survey was arranged for the resident’s property, the complaint process did not indicate a meaningful investigation or review or take into account the resident’s particular vulnerabilities”.

To remedy the injustice caused, the landlord was ordered to pay £700 in compensation and to ensure that works and repairs noted as being needed in the last survey were completed.

The compensation consisted of:

• £400 in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a fire safety check of the doors in her property and her concerns that the doors at her property were not fire-rated.
• £300 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “Given the intense focus on building safety following the tragic events at Grenfell, it is deeply concerning and unacceptable that the resident had to go to extraordinary lengths to resolve the issues with the fire doors.

“There were several missed opportunities in this case. While the landlord rectified the matter by arranging a door survey, there was a delay in a fundamental area of the landlord’s responsibilities."

Blakeway added: “The landlord should also have been aware that the kitchen door, which was supposed to be a fire door, was missing. It would be expected that the landlord would have undertaken an inspection of the property at the time of the mutual exchange applications, as standard good practice, if not part of its mutual exchange procedures.

“Not only was the landlord potentially remiss in relation to its duties in relation to fire safety but the resident was put to the trouble, inconvenience, and stress of pursuing the issue.

“I would also expect the landlord to ensure that it reassured the resident by providing a clear explanation of its decisions or took steps to carry out fire safety checks. It was also concerning the landlord did not account for the resident’s vulnerabilities during the complaints process."

Wandle has more than 7,000 homes across nine south London boroughs.

Following the investigation, the landlord’s learning included reviewing both its mutual exchange policy and its complaint handling process, as well as making it easier for staff to identify when a resident has a vulnerability.

Wandle said: “We’re deeply sorry that our service to this resident didn’t meet the standard we strive to deliver, and thank the Housing Ombudsman for allowing us to learn from this case.

“We have apologised unreservedly to the tenant affected, and have fully complied with the orders, and have reviewed policies and procedures to prevent something like this from happening again."

It said thee steps taken included:

• Reviewing its mutual exchange policy and procedures, and adjusting its procedures.
• Reviewing its complaint handling process, and moving staff roles into the Customer Resolution team, to better manage response times and satisfaction.
• Improved training for all staff in complaint handling, in particular for new starters to the organisation.
• Making it easier for colleagues to identify when a resident has a vulnerability or particular need that needs to be considered.

“We value our relationship with the Housing Ombudsman service, and always use feedback and findings to continually improve service, constantly striving to deliver outcomes for customers that make us proud," Wandle added.

Lottie Winson