Leeds City Council (202320876)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320876

Leeds City Council

30 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The removal of a greenhouse, conservatory and shed prior to a mutual exchange.
2. A request for a new fence near the boundary.
3. Her report of her son’s injury in the garden.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She moved into the property via a mutual exchange on 18 April 2022. The property is a three bedroom house.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord completed a mutual exchange inspection. It made the existing tenant aware that the sheds, conservatory and greenhouse in the garden would need to be removed before the exchange.
During January 2022 the resident completed a mutual exchange request. On 1 March 2022 an inspection was carried out by the landlord’s technical officer.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2022. This stated the resident accepted the property condition as is. The landlord had informed her she would be responsible for the fence at the property. She confirmed she was happy to provide the fence and understood the landlord would not be responsible for fence repairs.
During October 2022 the resident put in a permission form to make alterations to the property. This included installing a fence, installing turfed grass and porcelain paving.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord conducted an inspection of the resident’s property, in response to a separate complaint raised about the kitchen. Images were taken of the whole property. The resident did not raise any concerns about the condition of her garden at this time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2023, confirming receipt of her application to make alterations to the property. It stated a decision to grant or refuse permission would be made within 28 days.
On 13 June 2023 an annual tenancy check-in was completed. During this meeting the resident asked if the landlord would pay for the fence. She was advised it would not in most cases.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 August 2023 about the condition of her garden. She said:
1. When she moved in she had noticed the shed and conservatory had been torn down and dumped at the back of the garden.
2. At the time of moving in, she spoke to the housing manager who informed her the previous tenants had been told to remove the structures. She stated she was not made aware of this prior to moving.
3. A whole fence was needed, she stated she was not aware of this prior to moving in.
4. There were trip hazards, sharp and unsafe surfaces and cement in the garden.
5. The tiled floor remained where the conservatory was, which resulted in there being no drainage.
6. She was unable to let her son use the garden.
7. Her pram did not fit through the front door due to the placement of the living room door.
8. She had put in a previous complaint and not heard back from the landlord. Therefore she contacted her local MP for support.
9. She requested the landlord remove leftover rubbish. She also asked for debris, cement and block paving to be dug up and removed.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 September 2023. It explained:
1. The resident would be responsible for the fence and had agreed this in the disclaimer which was signed by her.
2. It was unable to uphold her complaint in regard to the rubbish left in her garden by the previous tenant. It stated it had not been made aware of this prior to her complaint.
3. It apologised the resident was unable to get in touch with the housing officer as there had been a change in staff.
4. When it completed a technical inspection of the property during the mutual exchange, it was reported the property was in good condition.
During September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to the landlord. She explained she was aware the property required a lot of work. However she was not made aware the greenhouse, conservatory and sheds would be removed prior to her moving in. As these were removed and there was no fence in place she was now responsible to replace more fence panels than expected. She was also concerned about the concrete slabs which were on the ground where the conservatory once was. She was concerned over the safety of her garden for her son as he had previously injured himself. The resident was seeking for the landlord to:
1. Remove the concrete slabs sticking out the ground.
2. Rebuild the conservatory.
3. Replace one of the fences.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 September 2023. It explained:
1. The condition of the resident’s garden had deteriorated since she moved in. Therefore it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint about the condition of her garden. It also was unable to accept liability for her son’s injury.
2. It had no reason to believe it was not communicated to the resident that the structures needed to be removed prior to her moving in.
3. She signed a disclaimer accepting liability for the fence.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the garden on 24 October 2023. The resident had started works to the garden and verbal permission was given to allow this.

Assessment and findings

Removal of structures.

We understand that at the time the resident viewed the property she states there was a shed and conservatory in the garden. Therefore she believed these would be in place when she moved into the property.
The landlord has stated that the structures were removed as they were not compliant with regulations and no permission to erect them had been sought. The landlord was within its rights to take such a decision. We say this because the landlord is obligated to ensure that any structures on the property comply with safety regulations. As these were built without the necessary permissions, the landlord was required to address this to avoid any potential safety issues, prior to the mutual exchange taking place.
Whilst we understand the resident was hoping for the structures to be replaced, the landlord is not obliged to replace items or structures which it had not given prior agreement for and which it had not installed itself. We have therefore considered if the resident was made aware of these changes prior to moving into the property.
We have reviewed the mutual exchange visit and inspection checklist which was completed on 1 March 2022 by the landlord’s technical officer. It confirmed that all sheds and the porch to rear were already removed as agreed with the housing officer.
In its formal response the landlord confirmed the housing officer was aware these structures had been removed. It stated it had no reason to believe the resident was not informed by the housing officer or the previous tenant about this before 18 April 2022. However the resident says she was not told they had been removed.
We have reviewed all the information and have not seen evidence to satisfy us the resident had been made aware of these changes. At the time of her viewing in January 2022 these structures still remained in place. The evidence does not confirm that the landlord made the resident aware, and if she had viewed the property with the structures there it is understandable why she expected them to be there when she moved. As the evidence does not demonstrate the resident had been made aware, we have found service failure.
We understand the removal of these structures was necessary to be compliant with safety requirements. As this work took place after the resident viewed the property, the landlord should have communicated this to her. It is also important that such conversations are recorded on the landlord’s systems, as this provides a clear record of all communication to avoid any disputes in future. In this case the landlord could not evidence that a conversation had taken place with the resident prior to the mutual exchange.
The resident was also unhappy with the condition of the garden. During August 2023 she provided images and stated that rubbish from the previous tenant had been dumped at the back of the garden. She further stated that, as a result of the structures being removed, the garden was a trip hazard, which contained sharp and unsafe surfaces.
We have reviewed images which were taken during August 2023. The images of the garden look different from images taken during an inspection of the garden dated 18 November 2022.
The evidence shows the resident had raised this concerns over 16 months after she moved into the property. The landlord’s position on this was that the garden was significantly different from when she moved in. Given the length of time that had passed before the resident raised her concerns, and that no concerns were raised by either party about the condition of the garden at the November 2022 inspection, we consider that the landlord’s position that it was not required to do any further work to the garden was reasonable in the circumstances.

Request for new fence near the boundary.

The resident expressed upset over the amount of fences which she would need to replace in the garden. We understand that at the time of signing the deed of assignment for the mutual exchange she believed the garden shed and conservatory were in place, therefore more fencing was not required. Upon signing she believed she would only be required to replace some fencing. She did not realise she was paying for a full fence, which she said would cost in the region of £1,200.
We have reviewed the evidence and can see the landlord informed the resident that, due to its fencing policy and lack of funding, she did not meet the criteria to have a fence installed. It further confirmed she accepted responsibility for this. On 1 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming acceptance of the property and agreeing to be responsible for fencing.
On reviewing the records, we have seen no further discussion of the fencing until October 2022 when the resident had put in a permission request form to make alterations to the garden and for a fence to be put in either side.
We have reviewed the annual tenancy check-in completed on 13 June 2023. This also confirmed the landlord advised at the meeting it would not pay for the fence.
The landlord’s fencing and gates policy states it does not have a legal responsibility to provide, repair and maintain or replace fencing and gates. This generally falls under a resident’s responsibility. In certain situations it will consider individual circumstances when dealing with fencing requests.
We understand the resident’s frustration that the removal of the structures serving as boundaries resulted in fencing needing to be put in place. We also understand the landlord’s position that under its policies it is not responsible for the fence. However there was no evidence that the resident was made aware that the structures would be removed and that there would therefore be an impact on the amount of fencing needed. Whilst the resident is responsible for the fencing, the lack of communication about the removal of the shed and other buildings was a failing by the landlord.Therefore we have found service failure.

Report of son’s injury in the garden.

We understand the resident raised a complaint about her son injuring himself in the garden. The landlord explained the garden’s condition was significantly different from when she moved in and there stated it would not accept liability or responsibility for the injury. We cannot determine liability for personal injury as this lies outside of our jurisdiction. What we have considered is how the landlord handled the resident’s report about the condition of her garden and the reported injury to her son.
We understand the resident states her son’s injury happened where the previous structure stood. We are unable to determine liability as this is outside of our jurisdiction. However we have considered how the landlord handled the report.
The evidence shows when the resident raised this in her complaint, the landlord reviewed its records and confirmed that its surveyor’s inspection report completed in 2022 stated the garden was deemed suitable and safe. It further stated that photos taken at the time of the inspection during March 2022 did not show any concerns with the condition of the garden. Through investigating the resident’s concerns it did not find it was liable for her son’s injury.
The landlord’s compensation policy states claims for personal injury above £100 where the landlord has shown to have been negligent and in breach of its duty must be submitted to its insurance team via the appropriate claim form. A claim form should not be submitted if the value is below £100 as this should be dealt with through its complaints procedure.
In this instance we have not seen the resident submitted a claim form, or that the landlord referred her to its insurers. Considering there is no evidence to satisfy the landlord was at fault, we find it was appropriate and in line with its guidelines to address the matter in its complaint responses.
Overall we are satisfied that when this report was made to the landlord it appropriately investigated the concerns and informed the resident of its position. If the resident still considers that it was liable for the injury, the landlord should explain how she can make a claim to its insurers.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the removal of a greenhouse, conservatory and shed prior to a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to a request for a new fence near the boundary.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of her son’s injury in the garden.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication prior to the mutual exchange.
The landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about the fencing.
The total compensation should be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation. The landlord should provide evidence to us to show it has complied with this order.