London Borough of Lewisham (202502857)

Background

1. The property is a ground-floor maisonette. The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s refusal of her request to install a rear garden door, which she says is necessary because her children do not currently have direct access to the garden.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a rear garden door.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a rear garden door.

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

Reasons

4. The landlord’s alteration and improvement policy requires residents to obtain written permission before carrying out any alteration, improvement, or addition to the property. It states that permission may be granted subject to conditions, or refused where structural, fire safety, or warranty issues arise. The policy also requires the landlord to provide residents with a clear list of information and documents needed to assess the request, such as insurance certificates, warranties, structural reports, and evidence of planning or building control approval. Staff are expected to be appropriately trained and to apply the policy fairly, consistently, and in a timely manner.
5. Under the policy, the landlord must gather all necessary information from the resident in order to properly evaluate whether the proposed work was safe, feasible, and compliant. This includes identifying whether the work would affect structural integrity, involve breaking through walls, impact other properties, or require specialist reports. The landlord can only make an informed decision once it has obtained all relevant documentation and assessed it against policy requirements and building safety standards.
6. In this instance, the landlord did not request all the information the resident was expected to provide under the policy. Internal correspondence showed staff were uncertain about the process, unclear who had authority to decide, and lacked understanding of the potential impact of the proposed work on the building. Staff also appeared unaware of whether similar alterations in neighbouring properties had been approved or investigated. This indicated that the landlord did not follow its policy for gathering and reviewing information and did not have current and accurate records of its stock.
7. Although the landlord advised the resident of some documentation needed, it did not tell her about all the documents and evidence that were required. Therefore, it was not in a position to determine whether the building’s integrity would have been affected. In the absence of structural assessments—which the policy specifically required—the landlord could not properly evaluate the risks or meet its procedural obligations. Any decision made without this information cannot be regarded as fully informed or as meeting the policy’s standards of fairness and consistency. The refusal therefore appears to have arisen not from a well‑evidenced assessment, but from uncertainty and a reluctance to take responsibility for the decision.
8. Therefore, although the landlord may have had legitimate safety concerns, it did not act in line with its policy because it failed to request the required information and did not ensure trained staff followed a proper decision-making process. As a result, the landlord could not make an informed decision, and the handling of the request fell short of the policy’s expectations. In addition, the resident experienced an avoidable delay of 4.5 months and understandable frustration because the landlord did not follow its policy or tell her what information was required, leaving her without a fair or informed decision on her request.
9. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted it had initially contacted the wrong team about the resident’s request, which caused a delay of around 3 months in progressing the request. It appropriately apologised for this. However, as it upheld the complaint at this stage, it would have been appropriate for it to award compensation for the service failure in line with its remedies and compensation policy.
10. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation in recognition of the delay and other failures identified above. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

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.