Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202415144)

Background

1. The resident moved into her house via a mutual exchange. She reported that the smallest bedroom is under the legal bedroom size limit. She asked to be refunded rent for paying for more bedrooms than she had. She requested for a boiler in the bedroom to be relocated, to allow the bedroom to be usable and safe for her child with vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a small bedroom, request for rent reimbursement, and request for relocation of the boiler.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a small bedroom, request for rent reimbursement, and request for relocation of the boiler.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a small bedroom, request for rent reimbursement, and request for relocation of the boiler

5. It is not evident that the bedroom falls below reasonable size limits, that the resident is eligible for a rent refund, or that the landlord is obligated to relocate the boiler to the dining room.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed by 2 weeks, and its stage 2 response was also delayed, which it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged. It is also not evident that the landlord followed its policy to contact the resident and let her know when to expect to receive a response, which led her to chase the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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. The resident complained that the smallest bedroom in her house is too small to fit her bed and said staff had agreed it is under legal size limits for a bedroom. She says that as a result she should be refunded for paying for more bedrooms than she has. She also requested for a boiler in the bedroom to be relocated elsewhere, so her bed can fit and the room can be used as a safe bedroom for her child who has vulnerabilities.
8. The landlord’s final response said the bedroom met legal size limits, the resident was not eligible for a rent refund, and it was sorry she was previously given incorrect information. It confirmed a solution to remove a boiler cupboard to allow the bed to fit, which it said took into account her child’s safety. It said it could not relocate the boiler from the bedroom for practical and cost reasons. It advised her about disabled facilities grants which could potentially fund moving the boiler after assessment of her child’s needs.
9. We understand the resident’s concerns about the bedroom size and how she is seeking for her child to have a bedroom that meets their complex needs. However, it is not in our authority or expertise to definitively decide whether the bedroom is below the legal limit or whether the landlord should relocate the boiler. We can consider whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with the law and relevant policies.
10. The evidence shows that the resident was told the bedroom was under the legal limit at points. However, the landlord’s final response said the room meets the size, 70 square feet, that the Housing Act 1985 would consider suitable as a bedroom for 1 person, someone who is 10 or over.
11. The evidence shows that the room is within this size. The size may be smaller if the boiler cupboard measurements are deducted, but it is not in our expertise to say that the cupboard makes the room unsuitable for 1 person under the Housing Act 1985. The solution the landlord proposed would remove the boiler cupboard.
12. We note that the resident intends for the room to serve as a bedroom for her child, who was 8 at the time of the complaint. The Housing Act 1985 says that for someone under 10, a room of 50 square feet may be suitable as a bedroom, which the room appears to exceed with the cupboard in place.
13. It is therefore not clear that the room falls below reasonable limits, or that the resident would be eligible for a rent refund, so the landlord’s response to these aspects were reasonable. The resident has the option to contact the local authority about the bedroom size or seek independent advice if she continues to dispute this.
14. The landlord has proposed a solution to reduce the space taken up by the boiler cupboard. This is to remove the boiler cupboard, place a lockable cover over the boiler, and box in pipework. The resident has explained how she considers this to be unsuitable and would prefer the boiler to be relocated to the dining room. She says the landlord’s solution does not understand her child’s needs and she has concerns about noise, safety and space.
15. The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the landlord’s gas management policy confirm it can be acceptable for boilers to be installed in rooms used for sleeping. It is evident that appropriate gas staff have considered the safety of the boiler in the bedroom. The boiler’s location in the bedroom therefore seems in line with the law.
16. The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments. When considering what is ‘reasonable,’ a social landlord may take costs into account. The landlord’s own adaptations policy reflects this and expects adaptations that cost over £1,000 to be supported by occupational therapist assessments and funded by a disabled facilities grant.
17. As the works would exceed £1,000, the landlord’s advice to apply for a disabled facilities grant reasonably reflects its obligations and the resident’s options, if she wants the boiler to be moved and is unable to fund this herself.
18. The resident has concerns that the landlord’s solution does not meet her child’s needs, which are understandable. However, the landlord shows it has reasonably considered these on the available evidence, and it is not evident that it was provided an occupational therapist report to consider these further.
19. Overall, it is not evident that the room falls below reasonable size limits for a bedroom, that the resident is eligible for a rent refund, or that the landlord is obligated to relocate the boiler to the dining room. The landlord has been positive to offer a solution to reduce the space taken up by the boiler cupboard. It is understandable if the resident does not feel this meets her child’s needs, but it is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy for more specific or costly adaptations to be supported by occupational assessments and disabled facilities grants.

20. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, it will contact residents and let them know when to expect to receive a response.
21. The resident complained on 27 August 2024 and the landlord sent an acknowledgment in line with its policy. This said it would respond within 10 working days and by 16 September 2024. It provided its stage 1 response on 30 September 2024. The resident then escalated her complaint around 7 October 2024 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement in line with the policy. This said it would respond by 4 November 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024.
22. The landlord’s complaint handling was not entirely satisfactory. Its responses were delayed at both stages of its procedure, including by 2 weeks at stage 1, but it did not acknowledge this. It is also not evident that it followed its policy to contact the resident about the delay, and she chased the stage 1 response. This did not have a significant impact on the substantive issues, but will have caused the resident some frustration and undermined her confidence in the landlord.

Learning

23. The landlord’s stage 2 response corrected previous information about the legality of the bedroom size. The evidence seen suggests that the legality of bedroom sizes has been a topic of some confusion for those who have visited the property and responded to the complaint. This may have led to the resident’s expectations not being effectively managed previously. The landlord could reflect on its staff training needs in this area.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

24. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable but as noted, it did not contact the resident to inform her of the stage 1 delay and let her know when to expect to receive a response. The landlord could reflect on how it ensures it communicates more effectively, including during the complaints process.