London Borough of Redbridge (202120423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120423

London Borough of Redbridge

11 April 2023

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to extend her property.
2. The landlord’s decision to refuse consent for the extension.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She purchased the property on 4 December 2018. The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat in a block. The landlord is a council.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement says that the resident must obtain consent from the landlord before making any alterations to the property or any part of the premises. This includes building any additional or substituted buildings.
The leaseholder alterations policy says that it will not normally consider alteration requests for extensions in blocks of flats. It says where there are exceptional circumstances it will consider these types of applications but this would only normally be in relation to converted street properties and not flats within blocks. It also says that any proposed works must not cause or be likely to cause any maintenance or structural problems for the landlord and that extensions may be refused if they obstruct access to underground drainage and other services for maintenance purposes.

Summary of events

The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 8 November 2021. Within the complaint she said:
1. She had been given planning permission to build a one-storey extension at the rear of the property but the landlord had refused consent for this.
2. Other neighbours had extensions like this.
3. She wanted the landlord to grant consent for the extension to be built.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 16 November 2021, it said:
1. Applications for improvements should be sent to the home ownership team with a fee of £81.60. The application would be reviewed to confirm if consent could be given. There was no record it had received an application from the resident.
2. It did not issue consent for extensions to be built on the back of properties because it would not be able to gain access for repairs or major works to be done.
3. The complaint was not upheld and told her how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day saying she would follow the landlord’s advice and make an application. She commented that she doubted there was much point as the landlord had already said it did not give consent for rear extensions.
On 3 December 2021 there was an e-mail exchange between the resident and the landlord, which included:
1. An e-mail from the resident to the landlord asking where the application form was so she could start the process.
2. A reply from the landlord to the resident saying there was no specific application and all it needed was a letter setting out the specification of works to be assessed. It advised it did not give consent for extensions to be built on the back of its properties as they could obstruct access for repairs and major works to be carried out.
3. A further e-mail from the resident to the landlord providing a plan of the proposed works to be carried out.
4. A reply from the landlord to the resident advising that consent could not be given for the works. The reason given was because it did not allow any additional structures to be built onto or against the building as they could cause access issues for repairs or major works to be carried out.
The resident made contact with this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. This Service contacted the landlord on 4 January 2022 asking it to provide a stage two complaint response to the resident within 20 working days.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident, which said:
1. The resident should have made an application under the leaseholder’s alterations policy so her request could be properly considered. It said the resident had not done this.
2. It had previously told her that it did not normally give consent for extensions to be built on the back of its properties.
3. Her lease required her to obtain consent.
4. If the resident made an application, it would likely be refused.
5. The complaint was not upheld.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day saying:
1. She was not aware she needed to make an application for improvements.
2. She was not aware of the procedure as she could not find it online and asked how she could make the application.
3. More than one neighbour had a similar extension and she wanted to know why the landlord had given neighbours permission but not her.
The landlord responded the same day advising the resident she needed to contact the home ownership team and provided the e-mail address for the team.
On 9 February 2022 the resident e-mailed the landlord asking for consent to build the extension and provided the plans for the proposed works. She also said that other neighbours had built similar extensions. The landlord responded to the resident two days later saying:
1. Consent could not be given for the proposed works as it did not allow additional structures to be built on or against its buildings. This was because they could cause access issues for repairs and major works to be carried out.
2. It would investigate the neighbouring properties who had built similar extensions and asked her for the property numbers.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s request to extend her property

In its correspondence with the resident, the landlord consistently said that it did not give consent to build extensions on the back of its properties. This is set out within the landlord’s leaseholder alterations policy and it was appropriate that the landlord told the resident this to be clear what to expect. The landlord went on to suggest in its stage one and stage two complaint responses that the resident needed to make an application for her request to be considered. This was also appropriate in the circumstances as the landlord’s policy suggests that in exceptional circumstances, it can sometimes agree on these types of works, and so it was right that it review all details of the proposed works and reasons for this to provide a specific response to the resident. Whilst this was appropriate, it did not explain the reasons for this to the resident, which left her confused about the purpose of making an application when the landlord had already told her it did not agree on these types of works.
There is evidence that landlord explained the application process to the resident on more than one occasion including that a fee was payable. It is reasonable and in line with its policy that the landlord charges a fee for applications as the review of these applications would involve additional work for the landlord. The resident provided the landlord with the specification of works to consider twice (December 2021 and February 2022) and on both occasions the landlord responded confirming it had reviewed her application and that consent was refused. It is not clear what, if any fees were paid and whether the landlord dealt with these as formal alterations applications. As the landlord had already seen the plans in December 2021 and refused consent, it is not clear why it then asked her to submit an application within the stage two complaint response in January 2022. This led to confusion for the resident and her having to take time and trouble to resubmit the same information in January 2022 to be given the same answer.
The resident told the landlord that other neighbours had built similar extensions and she queried why this had been allowed. It is reasonable that the landlord would not be able to share information with the resident about specific neighbours. It did appropriately confirm that it would investigate anyone with similar works done and asked her to provide the property numbers of these neighbours to allow it to do this.
In communications seen between the landlord and the resident, the landlord consistently referred to its alterations policy, which was good practice. However, the resident told the landlord that she could not find any information about this on its website and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a copy of the policy (or a link to the relevant page of the website) to the resident but there is no evidence that it did this.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to extend her property lacked clarity and amounts to service failure. Asking the resident to make multiple alteration applications whilst informing her that these would be refused was confusing and will have understandably been frustrating for the resident. This has not affected the final outcome or decision but meant that the resident took additional time and trouble to obtain a final response on this matter. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble taken in pursuing this matter.

Decision to refuse consent for the extension

The landlord’s reason for refusing consent was because the extension could obstruct access for it to carry out repairs or major works. This decision is supported by its leaseholder alterations policy. As the landlord manages the repairs and maintenance for the building as a whole, it is best placed to determine what alterations or improvements could obstruct access for it to carry out future works. Whilst frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision was reasonable and does not amount to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to extend her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to refuse consent for the extension.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to extend her property lacked clarity and was confusing. This confusion resulted in a prolonged final outcome for the resident and her having to take additional time and trouble to pursue the matter.
The landlord’s decision to refuse consent for the extension was reasonable and in line with its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble taken to pursue a final response to her request to extend her property.
Within four weeks the landlord is ordered to review its records to establish how many payments the resident made for alteration applications. If more than one payment was made, the landlord to refund the resident the cost for any additional payments made. The landlord to confirm in writing to the resident the outcome of this review and details of any refund payments.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

If not done so already, the landlord to make contact with the resident to obtain the property addresses where extensions have been built and carry out the necessary investigation into these. It is understood that the landlord will not be able to update the resident regarding these investigations.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of this report.