New Door Not Suitable For Disabled Person- Not ADM Standard

[jazzyman]

My elderly disabled mother recently had to have a new front door (fire door) installed by the housing association.

Before the new door was fitted a representative of the housing association said that the new door would be much easier to operate.

The new door was fitted and it is proving a nightmare for my mother, in fact she now does not leave her property.

A new overhead door closer was fitted and there is too much tension for her to open the door even though the adjuster is set on the lowest tension. The new adjuster fitted does not comply with the ADM standard and the manufacturers confirmed that the model fitted is not suitable for an elderly persons environment.

The second problem is that the new door now as a step fitted around 25mm heigh because my mother is blind and uses a wheel chair it is a hazard, again the step does not comply with the Building Regulations ADM.

I have reported the problems to the housing association and they are not interested because I believe that the ADM regulation is advisory?

Please could someone offer any advice if the housing association are allowed to carry out these new installations without any care for the disabled?

 

[tony1851]

The Approved Documents are indeed advisory as the HA has stated.

However, they are 'deemed to satisfy' provisions, which means that as long as the advice is followed, the developer (or in this case the HA) cannot be prosecuted for non-compliance.

However, if your mother was to have a tripping accident, or if her health fails because she cannot leave the property, then the HA can be prosecuted for potential non-compliance.

It might be worth writing to them advising that their 'improvements' have made matters worse, and that they have probably not complied with the Buillding Regulations.

 

[gregers]

why not get her occupational therapist in on the case?

 

[jazzyman]

Some good advice there, thank you.
The problem was reported to an occupational therapist, unfortunately there is a long waiting list and it could take months to get something done from social services.

 

[tony1851]

it could take months to get something done from social services.

Then write to the HA direct. Point out that they have departed from the guidance to the regulations. Then ask on what basis they have decided that ithe work still complies, and how they justify departing from the recommended standards.
They cannot just work to a different standard without declaring how it complies.

 

[jazzyman]

Then write to the HA direct. Point out that they have departed from the guidance to the regulations. Then ask on what basis they have decided that ithe work still complies, and how they justify departing from the recommended standards.
They cannot just work to a different standard without declaring how it complies.

Tony unfortunately this HA are terrible to deal with they will not reply to any letters etc

I did manage to contact the CEO of the HA and their reply was that before the fitting of the doors there were two consultations from the HA representative and there were not any objections and therefore the HA have complied with their duties.

Visit 1 was just to inform the tenants that new doors were to be fitted, no mention of door steps or high tension door adjusters were to be fitted. They also informed my mother that the new door would be much easier to operate.
Vist 2 was just to select the door colour, red or blue..

I just cannot believe that attitude of the HA?

Perhaps I should be querying with the Health & Safety Dept the lack of duty of care carried out by the HA?

 

[tony1851]

before the fitting of the doors there were two consultations from the HA representative and there were not any objections and therefore the HA have complied with their duties.

The consultations mean very little and do not absolve the HA of having to complying with the Building Regulations.

The fact that they have departed from the guidance in the Approved Document does not mean they have not complied. BUT, technically it means that they should be required to justify the decision-making process.

As explained before, should your mother have a trip-accident, they would have no evidence that they have complied with the regs, and simply saying that they consulted would mean nothing. Your mother could not be expected to know the regs and to satisfy herself that what they were going to do would comply.

 

[gregers]

contact your local mp.

 

[jazzyman]

Because the Part M Regulations are just advisory which is the excuse why the HA now have no interest in rectifying the problem.

I believe that "a replacement door/window must not make Part M compliance worse" Is this correct? and if it is correct, would there be a legal obligation to rectify the problems with the door?

A LA Health & Safety officer is visiting tomorrow so if the HA has failed it's legal obligations, there may be some hope..

 

[SimonH2]

What attitude to publicity does your mother have ? If she's amenable, then local newspapers love "disabled granny left housebound by evil landlord" type stories. In fact, most local papers are happy with any story that helps them fill the pages.


Also, and remember that IANAL, there is another route you might consider. The new door is clearly not fit for purpose and any competent landlord (or their agent) should know that. The other approach is to make a formal notice (write by recorded delivery to their chief executive personally) to the HA that the new door they have fitted is not fit for purpose and require them to rectify the situation within a period (allowing 3 weeks should be reasonable). State that should they fail to rectify the problem, or at least have come up with an acceptable plan in that time, then you will have the door replaced and sue them for all costs incurred.
As I say, IANAL and you should take proper advice before taking this route. But from the sound of it, it might be the only way to force the HA's hand.