Beyond Housing Limited (202348653)

Background

1. The resident lived in a property on an estate. The landlord was in the process of building a further development next to his estate. The resident was concerned about the loss of privacy and a pest infestation from a new bin store. He moved out of the property in December 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for:
      1. A proposed bin store to be relocated and for a higher fence.
      2.  A move and compensation.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request at a meeting to leave his home.
3. We will investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests around the bin store and fence, or in its response to his request for a move and for compensation.
5. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. We are satisfied that the landlord considered the resident’s requests and achieved some adjustments to its plans in order to reduce the potential impact of the bin store.
7. We are satisfied that the landlord facilitated a move as far as it was reasonably able to. As there was no service failure, there was no expectation for it to pay compensation however it reasonably offered financial assistance with flooring and decoration in the new property.
8. There was no evidence that the landlord acted with bad intentions when it did not leave the resident’s property immediately at his request. It had to consider its safeguarding obligations.
9. The landlord appropriately treated the resident’s email of 26 February 2024 as a complaint, addressed all the resident’s points, responded within its timescales and at the appropriate level of seniority.

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.

10. The resident was concerned by the building of a development behind his property. He requested that a proposed bin store be built elsewhere and a higher fence so that his view from his garden would not be impacted by it. We considered whether the landlord sufficiently considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and also whether it had considered any obligations it may have had under the Equality Act 2020 to make reasonable adjustments.
11. The landlord’s explanation for not agreeing to the resident’s request was reasonable. It explained that:
    1. The drainage had already been installed and this was an emergency service road access.
    2. The fence could not be higher than 2 metres because of the risk of collapse.
    3. It could not build a wall due to cost.
12. The resident told us the drainage was not built already at the time of the complaint as he observed the construction. The landlord’s evidence showed:
    1. The planning authority required drainage to the bin store.
    2. The refuse storage area had a gully, connected into the foul drainage system.
    3. The developer stated that moving the bin store altogether was not feasible. This evidence also showed the landlord had made relevant enquiries with the developer.
13. The following showed the landlord considered the resident’s request and any reasonable adjustments:
    1. It discussed the matter with the developer.
    2. It increased the height of the dividing fence by 20 cm so that it would be 2 metres high.
    3. The landlord built a 2-metre-high trellis fence as a second barrier between the estate and the resident’s home.
    4. It built the bin store 1 metre further away from the resident’s property than originally planned so that it was 270 cm away.
    5. It would also extend the hedge planting.
    6. It offered to paint the fence with anti-vandal paint.
14. The landlord has told us, and provided evidence, that the height of the bin store was 2 metres including a 1.8 metre close boarded fencing and 200 mm trellis. It was built 2.7 metres away from the resident’s fence, as opposed to the original 1.4 metres. A trellis 2 metres in height was built in August 2024.
15. The resident stated that the ground of the estate was higher than his side of the fence. The landlord told us that the ground beyond the resident’s fence sloped upwards by nearly 1 metre over the distance between the bins store and the resident’s fence. A passer-by would not be able to look over the resident’s fence because there was an intervening 2-metre trellis and the ground immediately beyond the fence would be at the same level on both sides. The bin store ground was at a lower level than the car park next to it. This meant the height of the fence would be lower than the bin store. However, the landlord had reasonably mitigated the impact of the bin store on the resident’s property.
16. The resident was concerned that this would not assist and that there was a risk of a pest infestation. He reported that there was already a pest infestation. The landlord signposted the resident to its pest control service. It would be for the landlord to minimise the risk as far as it was able to. As the bins were in a store, this would minimise odours. It said there would be weekly refuse collections and would act against fly tipping.
17. The resident was concerned that planting hedges would make drainage worse. We have seen photos of his garden that appeared to be waterlogged prior to the hedge planting. The opinion of the landlord was that the plants would improve drainage, which is reasonable.
18. Once the construction work began, the resident was disturbed by the activity. There was an issue about the bin store gates not being locked. As this was not part of the complaint, we cannot investigate these concerns. However, we do not consider that this was evidence that the landlord’s decision about the bin store location was wrong.
19. The landlord had carried out a consultation in October 2021 however this was before a number of residents moved in, including the resident. The timing seemed unfair as the resident missed an opportunity to put his objections. However, he had an opportunity to voice his opinion by way of his correspondence and his complaint. The landlord told us there were no other similar complaints, though we appreciate the bin store would have affected him and his immediate neighbours the most.
20. There was evidence that the plans had taken privacy into account in any event:
    1. The landlord explained to the resident that when approving a planning application, the planners would consider overlooking distances into homes and to enable approval these need to be minimum distances, which have been achieved. The plans had planning permission.
    2. The architect plans stated privacy distances are maintained across the development, and for adjoining housing too.
21. While we have sympathy for the resident’s concerns, and we acknowledge the prospect of the impact on his view and his feeling his home would feel like a prison, the landlord had to consider the wider requirements of the project.
22. We consider that the landlord took a proportionate approach in balancing the needs of the resident with the practicalities of the construction which were in the control of the developer in any event. It showed that, while it did not or could not prioritise the resident’s needs, it considered them and made adjustments including building a higher fence, adding a trellis fence and erecting the bin store further away. We find no maladministration for this complaint.

23. The resident was of the view that the solution to his situation was to move properties. It was reasonable that the landlord supported this by:-
    1. Increasing his priority by changing his banding to C in March 2024.
    2. Agreeing that he could bid for 2-bedroom properties and houses, properties usually reserved for families.
    3. Supporting him with an exchange, including with residents on the new estate.
24. The evidence showed that it would normally have been difficult to achieve a band C in the resident’s circumstances. According to the landlord’s policy, transfers were achieved through mutual exchange except in exceptional circumstances. The landlord applied reasonable discretion by increasing the banding
25. The landlord also made direct offers in exceptional circumstances. According to the landlord’s management move policy, these included where there was an urgent housing problem which was having a serious detrimental effect on the applicant’s health or well-being or in the event of an emergency due to fire or flood, risk of violence. Even if the resident had met the criteria, there was no evidence that the resident would have been in a better position had a direct offer been made as direct offers also depend on available of housing stock and would not have provided the resident with choice. Moreover, the register the resident was on provided a wider of choice of landlord. While we appreciate the resident was anxious to move, the period of March 2024 to 20 December 2024 was not a long wait given the demand for, and shortage of, social housing and the competing needs of other applicants.
26. The correspondence showed that the landlord worked with the resident to improve his chances and was in frequent communication. This also showed the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. We did not identify any failures by the landlord in this complaint and find no maladministration.
27. We note the frustration and financial impact on the resident, given his decision to move. He felt that he had no choice but to move. There was no dispute he had spent funds on his current property and was faced with further expense. Landlords may offer compensation where it has identified service failures. It did not identify service failures in the circumstances. As we find no maladministration in this complaint, there are no grounds to order compensation.
28. Housing association landlords have an obligation to conserve funds as they are largely public money and they are charities. However, the landlord reasonably offered assistance with carpets, dependant on the standard of the new property compared to his current property and to provide decoration vouchers. This was reasonable and demonstrated its willingness to support the resident.

29. The CEO and housing manager attended the resident’s house to discuss the landlord’s proposals to mitigate the positioning of the bin store and options to move. We note the involvement of the CEO as a mark of special attention as normally they would not get involved in the day-to-day operations. This gave assurance the resident’s situation was being dealt with at a senior level.
30. At the meeting in March 2024, the resident became upset, withdrew to the kitchen and asked the landlord to leave. The CEO knocked on the kitchen door and asked if he was all right. It was not disputed the resident’s request was clear and the landlord did not leave straight away. The resident also found the CEO’s tone condescending. The landlord’s explanation for her not leaving immediately was that she was concerned about his welfare. Given the landlord’s previous concerns about the resident’s reports about his mental health, this was understandable.
31. We accept these were difficult circumstances and the landlord made a judgment where it could have been criticised either way. We have no evidence that its decision not to leave straightaway was ill intentioned. The landlord had an obligation to consider safeguarding and the resident’s wellbeing. In the circumstances, while the resident was upset, we do not find maladministration for this complaint.

32. It was appropriate the landlord treated the resident’s email of 26 February 2024 as a complaint as it was an expression of dissatisfaction. It then responded in a timely way. While its Stage 2 review brief, the landlord had already given the matter proper consideration and did not have anything to add.
33. Our current complaint handling code requires that landlords must open a new complaint where unrelated issues are raised after issuing the Stage 1 complaint. This is unless this would unreasonably delay the response. The current code came into effect shortly after the landlord concluded its internal procedure so it was not a requirement at the time.
34. We find it reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s complaint about the CEO in its Stage 2 response rather than open a fresh complaint. It would have delayed the process unnecessarily to have opened a fresh complaint. While important, it was a single issue that related to the events in the complaint. We also are satisfied that, given the complaint was about the landlord’s CEO, it was dealt with at a sufficiently senior level, by the chief operating officer.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We had no concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

36. We find the overall communication good. This is because the landlord responded to the resident effectively and promptly and the resident was in direct contact with a senior manager. Given the level of communication was unusual, this showed a level of care and concern for the resident’s circumstances.