Lincolnshire Rural Housing Association Limited (202119325)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119325

Lincolnshire Rural Housing Association Limited

28 April 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s positioning of a replacement oil tank in the resident’s back garden.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 9 September 2021 following works to install a replacement oil tank in her back garden. The resident has an oil-fired heating system in her home. She raised concern about the positioning of the new tank stating, ‘it is a third of the way into the width of my garden and about the equivalent lengthways’ and that is was an ‘eyesore’. She also stated it impeded the design layout she had planned for her garden which she had been waiting to start for a while as the tank was supposed to be installed following a boiler replacement in April 2020. She explained that when a contractor came to discuss the positioning of the tank two potential sites were identified, but neither of these sites were used. She requested that the tank be relocated to bottom right-hand corner of her garden.  
  3. In its decision on the complaint, the landlord stated that the two alternative locations identified during the visit were not possible and explained why this was the case. It also explained that a new tank was needed to comply with updated regulations. It recognised that there was a delay in upgrading the tank and apologised for this. It confirmed there was an error in its in its previous explanation of why the second position could not be used and apologised for this.  It explained the works that would be required to reposition the tank at the rear of the garden including the need to install additional manholes, which would create further landscaping restrictions. It stated that it could not support the relocation of the oil tank as its contractor had confirmed the potential positioning was discussed and agreed with the resident. It also explained that, as a direct result of the complaint, it had improved its internal site survey documents to include written tenant confirmation.   
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wants the tank relocated. In particular she pointed out that she had not agreed to the current positioning of the tank. She maintains that the details of works required to position the tank at the rear of her garden, as stated in the landlord’s response, were not the same as those explained to her by the contractor when they visited and did not reflect those completed at neighbouring properties.

Assessment and findings

  1. There is no specific requirement for a landlord to agree the details of planned works with a resident. However, the landlord should be complying with the standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing. Under the Regulator’s ‘Homes Standard’ it states that registered providers shall ‘provide a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service to homes and communal areas that responds to the needs of, and offers choices to, tenants, and has the objective of completing repairs and improvements right first time’.
  2. The landlord escalated the matter to stage 2 of its complaints process and sent its final response on 26 November 2021. It confirmed there was an error in its in its previous explanation of why the second position could not be used and apologised for this.  It went on to explain the works that would be required to reposition the tank at the rear of the garden, including the need for additional manholes to be installed, which would create further landscaping restrictions. It stated that it could not support the relocation of the oil tank as its contractor had confirmed the potential positioning was discussed and agreed with the resident. It identified that as a direct result of the complaint it had improved its internal site survey documents to include written tenant confirmation.   
  3. It is agreed that there were discussions between the resident and landlord’s contractor regarding the positioning of the new tank. This shows an intention by the landlord to consider the resident’s view on the matter. However, the exact details of these discussions are not clear as there are no written notes of the pre-works site meeting nor of any further discussions on the day the works were completed. Without clear evidence of these discussions, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to make a judgement on the exact nature of the conversations or to ascertain the accurate version of events. 
  4. The resident has indicated that she had agreed to either of the two locations discussed. She stated that on the day of the installation she was at work and came home to find the tank installation half completed. One of the potential positionings was to the side of the fence on the left of the garden and she claims she queried with the operative why the tank had been positioned so far away from the fence. She states that she was told that they were just following the instructions given to them and that she should contact her landlord with any queries. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that two alternative locations were identified and stated that ‘following consideration these were not possible’. However, it is not identified in the evidence that a definite commitment was made to the resident to site the oil tank exactly in one of those locations.
  5. The resident responded on 4 October 2021 stating that she accepted the reason why one of the originally identified positions could not be used but challenged the reasons given for the second position not being used. She asked the landlord to reconsider her request that the tank be relocated. 
  6. It is a failing by the landlord that they did not identify earlier in the process that there were issues with these two locations and communicate this to the resident. The issues would have been identifiable at the site visit so the landlord should have been in a position to rule out these positions at an earlier stage which would have resulted in the resident having clearer expectations about the works.
  7. However, the landlord did identify in its final response that as a direct result of the complaint it had improved its procedures to include resident confirmation of the pre-works plans.  Whilst this improvement is positive, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s response would have benefited from an apology to the resident for the weakness in the procedure that existed at the time. This is addressed in the recommendation below.
  8. Following the stage 1 response the resident accepted that the position close to the left-hand fence was not possible but continued to dispute the reason why the position at the right–hand rear of the garden could not have been used.  In its final response the landlord acknowledged an inaccuracy in its stage 1 reply regarding positioning the tank in the rear corner of the garden. It had stated that the tank needed to be 1.8m away from the boundary fences. It corrected this identifying this only applied to non-fire rated structures such as sheds. It confirmed, that as pointed out by the resident, it only needed to be 760mm away from the fences. The landlord apologised for this error which in the Ombudsman view was an adequate response for this mistake.
  9. The landlord stated in its final response ‘I am unable to support the potential relocation of the oil tank as the contractor has confirmed that during their site visit the potential positioning of the replacement tank was discussed and agreed with yourself’. The landlord’s previous response had acknowledged that the two alternative locations identified at the site visit had not been kept to. Therefore, without further explanation, this statement is confusing. It may be suggesting that the original discussions with the contractor identified potential issues/variations with the locations or that the location used was not a significant variation from those proposed, or it could be simply identifying that there was some consultation. This lack of explanation makes it difficult to understand this element of the landlord’s response.     
  10. The landlord’s final response goes on to explain the works that would be necessary to relocate the tank to the rear of the garden. Some of these would be the result of the need to rectify the current positioning and some are works which would in the landlord’s opinion have been necessary to carry out the installation safely in that position. In particular it is claimed it would involve rooting the oil supply pipe around the perimeter of the garden which would mean installing manholes at every joint. They identified that this would mean re-siting the new shed which was installed as part of the works and would restrict future landscaping as the manholes could not be covered.
  11. The resident informed the Ombudsman that these works differed from a simpler option explained to her by the contractor. The Ombudsman is not in a position to determine the technical requirements of the works required and accepts that it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on its technical experts to assess the requirements. It is also reasonable for the landlord to consider the extent of the works required as these would impact on the cost effectiveness.   
  12. The resident also pointed out to the Ombudsman that there are other neighbouring properties that have oil tanks installed and their oil lines do not run around the perimeter of the garden. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised this point with the landlord as part of her complaint and therefore the landlord has not replied on this point. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to make a judgement on this issue. 
  13. Overall, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision on the positioning of the new oil tank. It is reasonable for the landlord, after considering the resident’s view, to decide that it is not able to meet the resident’s specific requirements as the works need to be cost effective and meet safety standards. While there were shortcomings in the way the landlord dealt with the matter, it did apologise for a mistake in its initial complaint response and introduced improved procedures. Its final response was in part confusing, though the Ombudsman does not believe this makes the landlord’s final decision unreasonable.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s positioning of a replacement oil tank in the resident’s back garden.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord apologises to the resident for the handling of communications during the period prior to the works commencing.