Industry News


Building owner ordered to pay £60,000 for cladding removal delays


Te owner of the Lumiere Building in Manor Park, East London has been ordered to pay £60,000 in fines and court costs aſter it was found guilty of failing to remove flammable cladding by a deadline set by Newham Council. Te council successfully prosecuted


Chaplair Limited for failing to remove flammable cladding by the deadline of 31st March 2021. Tis is believed to be the first time a local authority has prosecuted a building owner for delays in removing flammable cladding. At a sentencing hearing at City of


London Magistrates Court, the deputy chief magistrate Tan Ikram said cladding on the Lumiere building was highly dangerous and that Chaplair had not taken the risk it posed seriously enough.


Ikram acknowledged that the failure came in the wake of “evolving” Government policy and at a difficult time as the country emerged from the Covid pandemic.


Te Lumiere building is a former council


office block, which was repurposed for residential use in 2000, and has 71 flats over 10 floors. Te building contained the same types of cladding and insulation materials as Grenfell Tower, including aluminum composite material cladding and high pressure laminate panels, as well as timber- boarded panels. Te cladding and panels were replaced with


a non-combustible external wall insulation system, a concrete skin and Equitone Natura and Genius spandrel panels. Chaplair did not start work to


remove cladding from the building until May 2021. Te remediation work was complete by February 2022, almost a year aſter the deadline. In its defence Chaplair said that it faced


delays as it was unable to agree a deal with Willmott Dixon and subsequently had to change contractors. Lawtech was hired as the contractor to replace the cladding on the Lumiere Building.


Tragic noise case ended with vulnerable tenant taking their own life


T


he Ombudsman has found severe maladministration aſter a housing association’s tenant ended his own life


following long-running mental health issues and a nine-month noise nuisance complaint which was leſt unresolved. Te tenant killed himself aſter the country’s


biggest social landlord dismissed his pleas for help with a noisy neighbour as “whining” and told him he could not expect silence as he lived in London. Clarion was advised by the vulnerable tenant’s


doctor that the effect of noise from the upstairs flat on the tenant’s mental health was such that he had already attempted suicide twice. But Clarion failed to fix the problem or find him another home despite receiving more than 20 complaints. Aſter a nine-month ordeal, the tenant, who has


not been named, took his own life in September 2021. Aſter investigating the “deeply distressing” and “tragic” case, the Housing Ombudsman Richard Blakeway, found Clarion responsible for severe maladministration. He ordered the landlord to review its vulnerable


residents policy and apologise to the family, which it has done. He is now telling social housing providers to treat noise more seriously, warning that it is “something that can engulf” residents. Te tenant had also directly told Clarion he had


tried to kill himself as a result of stress from the noise and that “he felt so overwhelmed that he did not see any way out”. Blakeway said Clarion had “repeatedly failed to


apply a considered and tailored approach to the resident, despite a previous attempt to end his life. Tat should have been a warning but instead the landlord did not go far enough. We determined that Clarion’s lack of consideration of the resident’s vulnerability when handling his complaints about noise led to the resident suffering over a nine- month period.” In the same month the resident first reported the


noise issues, which were related to wooden flooring above and children jumping, the resident attempted an overdose, blaming it on the noise nuisance he was suffering. Despite the landlord recording vulnerabilities for the resident, it did not tailor its responses effectively.


STANDARD PROCEDURES FOLLOWED In its first response to the resident, the landlord sent a standard ASB letter, agreed to speak to the neighbour and created an action plan for the issue. Te neighbour agreed to having carpet fitted, but the resident soon spoke about what little difference this had made. At this time, there was no risk assessment conducted by the landlord.


16 | HMMDecember/January 2024 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


Blakeway said Clarion had “repeatedly failed to apply a considered and tailored approach to the resident, despite a previous attempt to end his life”


Te resident’s GP wrote to the landlord,


but the landlord was unable to find the letter due to a staff member leaving their post. But from this time, two months aſter the initial reporting of the noise nuisance, a tenancy sustainment officer had weekly contact with the resident. In the same month, the landlord issued its stage one response which acknowledged the issues and used the weekly contact as an opportunity for updates regarding the complaint. Te landlord said it would not install sounds


monitoring equipment due to the Covid-19 lockdown occurring at the time, which was not a reasonable position to take during this time as while there were still some restrictions in place, Government guidance stated that landlords could carry out repairs and safety inspections. When the resident filed two more noise reports,


he was once again sent the standard ASB letter he was sent months previously. Over the course of four months, the resident completed 18 noise reports and noise recordings were sent to the landlord but due to some soſtware issues, not all were listened to. A visit to the property by the landlord found


“considerable transmission of both noise and movement from the flat above into the resident’s flat” but nothing more was done. With issues still ongoing, the mental health team expressed concerns to the landlord about the resident. Troughout the complaint the resident himself complained of worsening mental health including anxiety and depression, stressed and not eating or sleeping. In the month before the resident took his life,


the landlord installed some sound monitoring equipment for a short period before removing it and taking no further action. It also did not act on his rehousing request. 10 days before the resident ended his life, the landlord closed the case. Te Ombudsman’s report notes that at the


coroner’s inquest, while the resident did not leave a note of intent, there was a history of overdose by medication because of the noise issue. Tere was no Prevention of Future Deaths order made for the landlord and the coroner concluded the resident took his own life.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36