Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited (202305105)

Decision
Case ID	202305105
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Weaver Vale Housing Trust Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident put up fencing, a large shed, and stepping stones in an external space near her property. The landlord told her she should have asked its permission to put up the structures. The resident asked the landlord for respective permission for the structures. The landlord declined this. It said the area was open space and not part of the resident’s property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handing.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures

The landlord followed its open space policy and the tenancy agreement in considering the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures. It effectively communicated its decision to the resident and explained the reasons for its decision.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded at stage 1 in line with the timeframe set out in The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). The landlord was one working day late to respond at stage 2 but the impact of this slight delay on the resident was minimal.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 August 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she disagreed with the landlord’s decision to decline retrospective permission for outdoor structures she had put up. She asked the landlord for permission to keep the outdoor structures.
22 August 2023 – 1 September 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to put its investigation of the complaint on hold until 30 September 2023 when she returned from a holiday.
23 October 2023	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and said as follows: The resident had made a similar complaint in 2018. It had explained to her in 2018 that the area was an open space and should not be fenced off. It had advised the resident in 2018 that any alterations to the open space would require its permission. It explained the resident’s tenancy agreement said she must not put up a shed or other structure unless she had permission in writing from the landlord. Its decision to decline retrospective permission for a large shed, fence and stepping stones had been made in accordance with its open space policy. As the resident had installed items in the outside space, its grounds maintenance team could no longer access the area. The cost of grounds maintenance for the open space was included in the resident’s annual service charge letter. It could not discuss the actions of other tenants, but it would deal with any unauthorised alterations made by others accordingly. It gave the resident 6 weeks to remove the outdoor items it had not given her permission for.
4 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint and said as follows: Her smaller shed was not big enough, so she needed to keep the large shed. The local authority had told her she did not need planning permission for the large shed. The landlord did not need access to the area as she maintained it. The external path was too far for her to walk to, so she needed the gate she had installed in the hedge. She looked after a dog and needed an enclosed space. If she had been told about the open space, she would not have accepted the property in 2017.
21 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
18 December 2023	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and said as follows: It acknowledged it had not provided anything in writing when the resident moved in, to say the area was open space. It had been common practise for it to tell tenants about this verbally at the time. Following the resident’s complaint in 2018, it had confirmed the area was open space. As such, it concluded the resident had been aware the area was open space since 2018. It had no record the resident had asked it not to maintain the open space. The tenancy agreement outlined a service charge was required to cover external maintenance. As such, external maintenance was not optional. If the resident had requested permission for the items in line with the tenancy agreement, it would have declined permission. This was because it needed to access the open space to carry out maintenance services. It confirmed the large shed, fencing, gate, and stepping stones would need to be removed as they were preventing maintenance. The resident could keep the small shed as this did not obstruct its maintenance service. It confirmed there was not a permitted access point to the path via the hedge. The open space would not prevent the resident from looking after a dog. Some properties in the area had boundary fencing. This type of fencing had no impact on open space areas or access to open spaces. A neighbour had replaced some rotten fencing. This was not the same situation as the resident installing a fence. If other properties had installed items which would impact on the delivery of the grounds maintenance service, it would deal with them in a consistent manner. It had introduced a number of changes to the delivery of the grounds maintenance service, one of which was to bring the service inhouse. It asked to discuss the works that were needed to ensure full recovery of the hedging which the resident had cut.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matter to us and said she wanted to be able to keep the items in the external area. She said she had not been made aware the area was open space when she moved in. She believed the landlord had let a neighbour have a fence and she had spent money maintaining the external area. She outlined health issues and said the complaint had been detrimental to her health.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident believes that her health has been affected by this complaint issue. As a resolution to her complaint, she would like to be able to keep the items she installed in the open space. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for retrospective permission for outdoor structures impacted her health. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For these reasons, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her health.
The resident made a previous complaint to the landlord in 2018 about it not having told her that the outside area was open space before she moved in. There is no evidence the resident referred this complaint to us. We are not able to investigate complaints which were not referred to us within a reasonable timeframe, normally 12 months after the landlord had sent its final complaint response to the resident. As such, we are not able to investigate the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not told her that the outside area was open space before she moved into the property.

What we have investigated

The resident asked the landlord on 19 March 2023 for retrospective permission for a shed and gate she had installed in the outside area.
The landlord’s open space policy says that open spaces are defined as areas of land without human-built structures. If a resident wishes to alter an open space, they need to apply to the landlord to make changes in writing.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says she needs written permission from the landlord before installing any shed, fence, or other structure at the property or in shared spaces. It is accepted by both parties that the resident did not request written permission from the landlord to install a shed, fence, gate, or stepping stones in the outdoor space.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that following a request for such permission to install external structures, the landlord will consider the request and will provide a response which will explain its reasoning for its decision. The tenancy agreement does not set out a timeframe for this consideration.
In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s planning team and surveyor inspected the outdoor area on 12 May 2023 and carried out a permissions survey. It is not clear from the evidence we have been provided with why there was a delay between March and May 2023 in this being carried out. However, we note that the delay did not have a significant impact on the resident as the structures were already in place.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 May 2023 confirming the outcome of its consideration of the retrospective permission request. It said that it had not granted permission for any of the structures. It explained this was because the area was open space and its maintenance team needed to be able to maintain the area. It explained that as the resident had installed the items without its permission, this was a breach of the tenancy agreement. It asked her to remove the items within 6 weeks.
The resident outlined her dissatisfaction with the decision of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that if she is unhappy with the outcome of permission consideration, the landlord should consider this via its internal complaints procedure. The landlord acted in line with the tenancy agreement and raised a complaint.
Within its stage 1 response, it reiterated the reasons for its decision not to grant retrospective permission for the items. It explained the restrictions set out in the tenancy agreement against installing sheds, fencing and other structures. It also advised that the upkeep of this area was included in the resident’s service charge. It gave the resident another 6 weeks from the date of the complaint response to remove the items.
Following the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, it visited her to discuss the complaint. This was over its requirements and demonstrated that it had taken her complaint seriously and had taken steps to fully understand her concerns about the outdoor area.
The landlord reiterated its decision to decline permission for the items within its stage 2 response. It also reiterated the reason for this. It acknowledged that it did not have a written record that it had told the resident the area was open space when she first moved in. However, it had been common practice at the time to advise resident’s of this verbally. It noted it had made the resident aware if the open space in 2018. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the actions of neighbours and that she felt the landlord was treating her differently. It advised that it would request any unauthorised structures put up by others to be removed. It also appropriately managed her expectations by advising that some properties had boundary fencing, but this did not affect the boundary type of her property.
The landlord took the resident’s concerns about the quality of grounds maintenance on board and advised that it had moved this service in-house. It was reasonable for it to ask to meet with the resident to discuss the grounds works required to the space to restore it going forward.
Our investigation of the evidence provided has found that the landlord correctly applied its open space policy and refereed the resident to her tenancy agreement, which set out the landlord’s position in respect of installing external structures. The landlord followed the process outlined in the tenancy agreement to consider the resident’s request to have retrospective permission. The landlord took steps to visit the property to see the structures in place and appropriately considered her request. It clearly outlined its decision and explained the reasons for this. As the landlord followed its policy and procedure there was no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time said at stage 1 it would acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours and provide an outcome within 10 working days. At stage 2 it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the day it was made, 22 August 2023. The resident subsequently asked the landlord on 1 September 2023 to pause its investigation of the complaint until she returned from a holiday on 30 September 2023. The landlord put its investigation on hold as per the resident’s request.
The evidence provided shows that landlord tried to discuss the complaint with the resident in October 2023, but it could not make contact with her. It subsequently sent its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023. This was 15 working days after the date the resident had asked the investigation to recommence.
Our Code, which was in place at the time of the complaint, said that landlords should acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and send the response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. As such, our Code gave landlords a total of 15 working days to respond at stage 1.
The landlord’s stage 1 response took longer than stated in its policy, however the time taken of 15 working days, was within the timeframe of our Code. Although the time was in line with our Code, the landlord’s policy set an expectation for the resident as to how long it would take to respond. Despite this, the response timeframe did not significantly impact the resident.
Both our Code and the landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time said that the landlord should respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Both said this timeframe could be extended if the resident agreed.
The resident escalated the complaint on 4 November 2023. The landlord made a note on its internal records on 1 December 2023 that it had spoken to the resident, and it had agreed with her that it would send the stage 2 response by 15 December 2023.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. Although this was one working day over the landlord’s extended response timeframe, the effect on the resident of this slight delay was minimal and it did not affect the outcome of the complaint. As such, we have concluded there was no maladministration.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was clear and thorough throughout the complaint.