Incommunities Limited (202406062)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow that backs onto communal land. In April 2022 the resident requested permission to install fencing and a shed on the communal land. The landlord declined his request in October 2022 and explained alterations to communal land were not allowed under its home alterations policy. The resident requested the same alterations again in 2023 as his neighbours had them, and the landlord declined again.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Alterations request.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s alterations request.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Alterations request

4. The landlord’s decision to deny the resident’s alterations request was in line with its policy. The landlord delayed responding to his first alteration application and explaining its tenancy enforcement position. It failed to clearly explain its appeals process or set out its position on his neighbours’ existing alterations. It took learning, sent the letter to his neighbours, offered him compensation and the option to appeal. This was sufficient to remedy the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and requested an extension within the timeframes set out in our Complaint Handling Code (our Code). While itsacknowledgement timeframes did not align with our Code, this did not cause any detriment to the resident. It has since updated its policy to resolve this issue.

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.

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.

6. The resident made a previous alterations request in 2020. There was then a considerable gap until his next request in April 2022. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the landlord’s actions from April 2022 onwards which led to his complaint in July 2023.
7. The resident asked to install fencing and a shed on 18 April 2022. The landlord’s home alterations policy says it will not permit any alterations to communal space. It reasonably explained this position to the resident in May 2022. In line with its policy, it inspected on 9 June 2022 and requested further information from the resident on 12 July 2022. Its decision on 7 October 2022 to decline the resident’s alterations request aligned with its policy position to not permit any alterations to communal space. It appropriately declined the resident’s further alterations request in July 2023 for the same reason.
8. The landlord’s home alterations policy says it will send a decision within 28 days of a completed request. However, it did not send its decision until 7 October 2022. This was 70 days after the resident provided the final information on 30 July 2022. Waiting for this decision caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
9. The landlord’s home alterations appeals policy explained if a resident is unhappy with an alterations decision it will go through its appeals process rather than its complaints process. The landlord acknowledged it did notclearly explain its appeals process to the resident but put the issue through as a complaint. Itreasonably said should the resident wish to make an appeal it would arrange for this to be looked at by someone not previously involved. The resident then chose not to submit an appeal.
10. The resident told us he was unhappy the landlord did not take tenancy enforcement action against his neighbours for installing fences and sheds on the communal land. We saw evidence the landlord considered its position, and that it took some actions which we cannot comment on as they relate to the landlord’s specific enforcement consideration or actions relating to other tenancies. Therefore, we have focussed our consideration on the landlord’s communication to the resident about this and whether it followed through on commitments it made.
11. The resident repeatedly said it was unfair for the landlord to decline his alterations request as his neighbours had fencing and sheds on the communal land. The landlord clearly explained in July 2023 that when it had created the new policy it decided not to take action against any pre-existing alterations. It said it would remove these as tenancies ended to restore the communal land. While this position was reasonable, it should have explained this to the resident sooner when he first raised the issue.
12. On 24 January 2023, the landlord said it would write to the resident’s neighbours about unauthorised structures but delayed doing this until after its final complaint response. This delay caused the resident further inconvenience as he had to ask the landlord for an update on this as part of his complaint. It acknowledged its delay in the final response on 5 October 2023 and sent a letter setting out its position on 21 October 2023.
13. In its final response on 5 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the failings we identified. To remedy the impact on the resident it shared learning with its staff, sent the letter to his neighbours, and offered £75 compensation. This compensation amount is in line with the suggested range of under £100 for service failures causing frustration and inconvenience in our compensation guidance. This was sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident.

14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 4 working days. While this was outside its policy timeframe of 2 working days, it was within our Code timeframe of 5 working days. It has since updated its complaints policy to align with our Code.
15. The landlord’s overall responses were in line with the timeframes in its policy and our Code. These require it to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and it can request an extension up to 10 working days. It did this on 1 August 2023 within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It responded 3 working days later on 4 August 2023. While there was a slight delay in its response, this did not have a significant impact on its handling of the issue or the resident to amount to service failure.
16.  It responded at stage 2 in 19 working days in line with its timeframe of 20 working days.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s communication records were thorough and detailed.

Communication

18. In its complaint response the landlord suggested if the resident were to make an appeal this would likely have the same outcome as his request. The landlord should be mindful its language does not suggest that its appeals process could have a pre-determined outcome.