The Housing Ombudsman has found severe maladministration for Metropolitan Thames Valley following the way it dealt with a complaint from a resident relating to fire safety.
The case in question left the south London resident with anxiety over the issue for over 10 months, according to the Ombudsman.
Throughout the complaint process, the landlord failed to recognise the inherent anxiety associated with fire safety and sought to provide no reassurance to the resident, particularly in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, the Ombudsman found.
Metropolitan Thames Valley – which manages around 38,000 homes – also failed to recognise the resident’s disability, something he had raised from the start.
The associated complaint relates to disrepair to a communal fire alarm call unit.
The contractors were unable to resolve the issue on an initial visit, and the landlord investigated the wrong fire safety issue on numerous occasions.
In terms of the complaint responses, the stage one response was delayed and did not recognise the issue – referring to the fire alarm itself rather than the fire alarm call point.
The landlord also upheld the complaint, despite no repair being carried out; this lack of clarity made the resident more frustrated and confused, the Ombudsman said.
Whilst the landlord’s stage two response did accurately acknowledge and address the issue that had been complained of, it could have been more detailed, the Ombudsman said.
It is unclear why the landlord was continuing to investigate the matter of whether call points were needed 10 months after the issue was raised – and when it found that the call points were no longer needed but took time to inform the resident of this and allay his fears.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and set out its current fire safety procedures, ensure appropriate signage around the building, and clarify whether the fire alarm call points can now be removed.
In its learning from the case, the landlord said it has improved how it responds to stage two complaints and has developed processes to encourage more collaborative working.
More recent Ombudsman investigations:
- Severe maladministration for London landlord after family left with unsafe windows
- Severe maladministration for Westminster City Council after new-born left in damp home
- Ombudsman issues special report on Catalyst ahead of Peabody merger
‘Frustration and anxiety’
Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “The resident repeatedly stated he had a disability, and this was not acknowledged or responded to at any point by the landlord.
“Yet the resident’s disability should have been recognised by the landlord and informed its approach, both in terms of the timescale it responded to the repair of the fire alarm call unit and its handling of the complaint.
“The handling of the complaint meant safety questions remained outstanding, and this undoubtedly caused frustration and anxiety for the resident.
“This is another example of how landlords need to strengthen the handling of complaints involving fire safety.”
He added: “I welcome the landlord’s response on its learning from this case and the changes made to improve its service.
“I would encourage other landlords to consider the learning the case offers for their own services.”
The Ombudsman also found maladministration for the landlord’s response to the fire alarm call unit repair itself.
This is because, despite in the end there not being a safety issue, the landlord did not take the matter seriously enough, the Ombudsman said, which meant insufficient action was taken.
Metropolitan Thames Valley learning statement
In all cases of severe maladministration, the Ombudsman invites the landlord to provide a learning statement.
Metropolitan Thames Valley said: “We took too long to provide reassurance to the resident about the fire safety of their property, and did not handle the subsequent complaint satisfactorily.
“This led to an unnecessary period of uncertainty for the resident about the status of inactive equipment, which was no longer part of the building’s fire safety procedure.
“We also did not consider the additional needs of our resident appropriately enough, and how this situation had impacted them.
“Fire safety is our number one priority – it is imperative that we listen to residents when fire safety concerns are raised.
“We have apologised unreservedly to the resident for the worry caused and removed the redundant equipment.
“We have made three main changes to our approach, following learnings from this case:
- Introduced a new ‘risk meeting’ for cases involving multiple internal teams, to improve collaborative working. These have an elevated organisational status, with clear mandates on actions, and enhanced record-keeping
- Heads of Service now personally sign-off every complaint response at Stage 2. This is to ensure the standard of reply meets residents’ expectations and that relevant operational teams are accountable for commitments that are made
- New mandatory colleague training to ensure members of staff understand the circumstance, and means, to raise a complaint when a resident requests one
“Through changes to our more localised housing management approach, our Local Housing Managers are now responsible for non-technical fire safety checks as part of their communal walkabouts.
“This includes identifying and arranging removal of outdated fire safety equipment.
“We are grateful to the Housing Ombudsman for the opportunity to review how we have responded to this determination, and to make improvements to our service.”
Image credit: steved_np3/Shutterstock
Read next: Government launches ‘Watchdog style’ training scheme for social housing tenants
Are you a social housing professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
