Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202337500)

Decision
Case ID	202337500
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Plymouth Community Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 June 2026

Background

The resident lives in a bungalow which has a shed near the front door. Some properties in the area have their shed and front door area enclosed. For the purpose of this report, this will be referred to as a porch. The resident asked the landlord to fit a porch to bring her property in line with the others.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. A request for a porch.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to a request for a porch.
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

The landlord identified failings at stage 1 in its response to a request for a porch. It made an appropriate offer of redress for these.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales in its customer complaints and comments policy. There were some differences between the landlord’s policy at the time and the Code. This was because the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure prior to our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) becoming statutory.

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 recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation awarded in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Our findings of reasonable redress for the customer service failures that the landlord identified are made on the basis that the awarded compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2023	The resident made a complaint. She asked for a porch to be fitted to her property because the other bungalows in the area had one. The resident said the landlord inspected the property and told her it would get in touch. She had not heard further from the landlord. The resident said she had water coming in under her front door which would not happen if she had a porch.
1 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it would not fit a porch to the resident’s property. The landlord said the work carried out on other properties in the area had been done on a programme. It said the residents at the time had the choice for the work to be done. The landlord said there were no plans to complete porches that previous residents had declined. It said an appointment had been booked for an operative to attend to inspect the front door to see why it had let in water.
3 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She did not agree with the landlord’s decision not to fit a porch. The resident said on a windy day that the wind gusts between the shed and the property which had caused the shed door to shut on her. She said this was dangerous. The resident said her front door mat was getting really wet and water keeps coming in through the door which the landlord had arranged appointments for. She reiterated that a porch would help prevent water coming in and help with how cold the property can sometimes feel.
30 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had carried out some work to the front door, but it had not found any evidence of water having entered the property despite a recent storm. The landlord explained its approach to property maintenance, repairs and improvement programmes. It said it did not have any plans to offer porches as an improvement and declined the resident’s request. The landlord acknowledged that it did not provide a full explanation in its stage 1 response as to why it would not fit a porch. It also apologised for a delay in responding to the resident’s initial request for a porch. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for these two matters.
4 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3. She reiterated her concerns that wind blowing between the property and shed was dangerous. The resident said it was a health and safety matter as the shed door could get caught in the wind due to the property having no porch. She felt the landlord had not provided a good explanation and had not been clear about why it would not fit a porch. The resident wanted her property brought in line with other properties. She felt the porch would provide benefits to her. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider its decision.
19 December 2023	The landlord issued its final response. It said it had carried out a stock condition survey on the property during which it considered the resident’s concerns about water leaks and a wind tunnel effect. The landlord said the surveyor acknowledged that fitting a porch would be a desirable improvement but was not essential for the upkeep and function of the property. It said its position remained and it had no plans to fit any porches where previous residents had declined them.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. The resident wanted a porch fitted to bring her property in line with the other bungalows in the area.

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	Request for a porch
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the resident made a request in “early 2023” for a porch to be fitted. It apologised for its delay in responding to the resident. We have been unable to establish from the evidence when the resident initially made her request prior to raising her complaint.
On 5 October 2023 the landlord inspected the property to consider whether a porch was required. We were unable to establish what prompted this inspection, especially as the landlord said the resident made her request in early 2023 and the resident had not yet made her complaint.
On receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord chased the matter internally. A landlord internal email dated 30 October 2023 said an email about the matter along with photos of the property had been sent between departments.
A further internal email dated 31 October 2023 acknowledged that the resident’s request had fallen between teams and had not been picked up. This was a failing and showed there was not adequate oversight of the request.
Within the landlord there was concern expressed that attending to inspect the resident’s property in October 2023 may have raised the resident’s expectations for a porch. It was clear in the landlord’s internal communication that this work was not considered a repair and there were no planned programmes to fit porches. The landlord’s internal email said the budget to repair and maintain properties could not be used for improvements.
When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord researched the matter further. It identified that the other properties in the area had porches fitted 13 years ago as a result of a front door upgrade programme.
It had been decided at the time to allow residents to choose if they wanted to move their front door to close off the open area. The landlord said the previous tenant had chosen to have their front door upgraded without moving the location of the door. This meant no porch had been fitted as part of the upgrade programme.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response how it had undertaken this upgrade programme in 2010. It said that it understood the resident’s frustration, but it did not have any plans for further improvements at the time.
The evidence showed that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It held an internal meeting on 7 December 2023 to discuss the matters. The actions from this meeting were to visit the property to see if there were any hazards. It also said it would review its decent homes policy and tenancy agreement.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord carried out a stock condition survey of the property. The report said there were no problems identified. It said a porch would be deemed an improvement. The report concluded that no work was needed at the property. The landlord was reasonable to rely on the outcome of the survey.
We are satisfied that the landlord took the appropriate steps and gave appropriate consideration to the resident’s request. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it was unable to carry out work retrospectively from a historical improvements programme.
The requested works were assessed as an improvement rather than a repair. Therefore, the work was reasonably declined in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and its tenancy obligations.
The compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to the failings it identified during the complaint investigation and in line with our compensation guidance.
On 8 June 2026 the landlord told us that after contact from the resident’s representatives and in light of the resident’s personal circumstances, it carried out a further review of the resident’s request for a porch.
It said following this review, it exercised discretion and, on an exceptional basis, agreed to proceed with the installation of a porch at the resident’s property. The landlord said this outcome was confirmed in writing to the resident’s representative on 14 May 2026 which they accepted on the same day.
The landlord said steps had been taken to progress this work. It had instructed its contractor to attend the property to take measurements, provide a quote and confirm a proposed start date for the works. The landlord said the appointment for this initial assessment was booked for 11 June 2026.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

At the time of the resident’s complaint the Code was not statutory. The landlord’s customer complaints and comments policy differed slightly in parts from the Code. However, the landlord’s policy definition of a complaint was in line with the Code.
The landlord’s policy had 3 stages. The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure before a 2-stage complaint procedure became statutory. Therefore, the resident received a stage 3 final response.
The landlord’s timescales for issuing stage 1 and stage 2 responses were in line with the Code. The landlord issued these responses in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord’s final response at stage 3 was issued in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s policy said acknowledgements should be issued within 2 working days, whereas the Code states 5 working days. The landlord issued its acknowledgements in line with its policy.
The landlord’s current customer complaints and comments policy is in line with the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

The landlord should ensure it has adequate oversight of matters and that there is accountability within departments so that issues do not get missed being passed between departments. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping and communication between departments.