Mid Devon District Council (202431865)

Background

1. The landlord demolished the chimney stack and the resident asked if the chimney breast could also be removed as it occupied space in a small bungalow. The landlord declined to remove the chimney breast as this was a cosmetic change outside its repair obligations. The resident wants the chimney removal carried out.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s request to remove the chimney breast.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Resident’s request to remove the chimney breast.
   2. Associated complaint.
4. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. While minor communication failures occurred, we found no evidence of service failure or maladministration, and the landlord’s position remained consistent with its policy and tenancy agreement.
6. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. On 20 and 21 August 2024, the landlord removed the chimney stack following a leak. The resident requested full removal of the chimney breast as it served no purpose and occupied space in the small bungalow. The landlord confirmed the repair covered demolition of the stack only, not the breast. It completed the necessary repairs and stated it was not responsible for cosmetic changes. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that chimney breast removal was not routine work, as it required extensive alterations and significant cost. However, residents could request permission under its improvements policy. It found no evidence to suggest a need to remove the chimney breast and therefore this position was in accordance with the landlord’s policy and tenancy agreement.
8. The resident raised concerns about miscommunication, stating that an operative had said the chimney breast could also be removed, which would likely require the resident to move out of the home. The landlord disputed this and explained that although the resident’s enquiries had been passed on, it found no evidence to suggest that operatives had agreed to remove the chimney breast. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that some officers had provided ambiguous information, which may have caused confusion, but records showed no assurances were given that it would carry out the works. We reviewed operatives’ notes in relation to the query and found no information to suggest that any agreement had been made. It would have been helpful for the landlord to provide written information on requesting permission for improvements to avoid confusion.
9. The first record in the repair log regarding a request to assess removal of the chimney breast was dated 5 August 2024. The resident chased this request on 22 August 2024 and 30 August 2024, but we found no evidence that the landlord responded. Landlords should provide a timely response or a holding response to avoid residents having to chase. While there were minor communication failures we concluded it did not amount to maladministration.

10. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 September 2024, 10 working days after the complaint was acknowledged. This was in accordance with its complaints policy.
11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 18 September 2024 and the landlord responded on 27 September 2024, within 7 working days. This was in accordance with its complaints policy.
12. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

13. The landlord informed the resident about requesting permission to make improvements to the property at his own expense in stage 1 response. It could have provided this information at the outset.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

14. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went happened.

Communication

15. The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been better. It missed opportunities to provide clear and prompt responses to the resident.