From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Soha Housing Limited (202407710)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407710

Soha Housing Limited

8 July 2025

 

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 handling of its decision to remove a timber conservatory from the property.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom end of terrace house, for 26 years. The landlord is a housing association. The property has a timber conservatory at the rear, which is attached to the back wall and entrance is through the kitchen. The structure is wooden, with single pane glass windows and a felt roof. The landlord has maintained it for the duration of the resident’s tenancy.
  2. In February 2024 the resident reported that the roof of the conservatory was leaking. A contractor repaired the areas of the roof where the water was dripping through. They concluded the roof needed new felt and new boards, as the existing ones were soaked with rain water. The moisture had caused damp and mould in the roof.
  3. In May 2024 the landlord told the resident the timber conservatory was not repairable and would be removed. The resident complained on 24 May 2024, saying this was unacceptable and it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the conservatory.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 June 2024 it said the conservatory was beyond economic repair. It offered to remove it and provide a timber shed for storage.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 June 2024 as the landlord was proposing to remove part of her living space. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 July 2024. It said the conservatory had reached the end of its life and its offer of a timber shed as a replacement was fair and reasonable.
  6. In her referral to us the resident said she does not believe a shed compares to the structure she has had for the past 26 years.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord bought the property on the open market in 1998/1999 shortly before the resident moved in. In the valuation report at the point of sale, the surveyor listed the conservatory as being present and part of the footprint of the property. The resident provided us with a copy of her tenancy agreement. The description of the property details “garages and outbuildings” as being included and for use with the resident’s home. It was reasonable for the resident to expect the conservatory to be part of this indefinitely.
  2. The conservatory has been part of the resident’s living space for 26 years and she uses it as a room to sit in, with cane furniture. She also stores her freezer and tumble dryer in there as it has an electricity supply.
  3. When the landlord first told the resident the conservatory would be taken down, it said it should have been removed before she moved in. That was not a helpful or appropriate statement given the conservatory was listed in the property documentation and the landlord had maintained it for a number of years.
  4. The landlord said there were concerns with the structure and the single pane glass was not compliant with current building regulations. It said the frames were rotten and beyond repair. It offered to see whether electrics could be put in an existing brick built outhouse to store the tumble dryer and freezer. This was a fair offer in terms of the appliances but did not take into account the fact the conservatory was part of the resident’s home and usable living space.
  5. In the stage 1 response the landlord explained the contractor’s report. This said the timber was rotten due to moisture and mould would continue to return. It was the contractor who assessed the conservatory as being beyond economical repair. The landlord was entitled to rely on this and it was reasonable to share the findings with the resident.
  6. The landlord said the conservatory was always considered a temporary structure and was never intended to be insulated or have electrics. However, the conservatory had an electricity supply and outlets when the resident moved in. These have been regularly checked by the landlord as part of its safety checks. The fact the landlord said it was never intended to have electricity is contradictory and inaccurate. If that was the case it should have been identified long before now. The landlord’s explanation of its position amounts to service failure.
  7. The resident has used the conservatory for many years and the landlord has previously repaired and maintained it. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will “keep in good repair” the structure of the property including any “integral garages and stores”. This would include the conservatory. The manner in which the landlord said it was always temporary and needed to be removed was dismissive and unfair. The conservatory has been part of the property since the resident moved in so she understandably felt shocked and upset by the landlord’s decision.
  8. At stage 2 the landlord maintained its position. The response explained its reasons as per the contractor’s report. The offer of a timber shed was made in good faith and would provide the resident with storage. However, it does not take away from the fact the resident will be losing living space and part of the footprint of the property. The fact the landlord has not fully considered the impact on the resident amounts to service failure.
  9. The resident has concerns about where she would put her freezer if she loses the conservatory. She said the landlord has never replaced her kitchen in the years she has lived there and there is no space for a freezer in there. Internal landlord communication confirmed this and noted it had a responsibility to provide an under counter freezer in the kitchen. It is a failure that this has not been addressed before the decision was made to remove the conservatory. The landlord should visit the resident to explore this further.
  10. The landlord said it is not responsible for providing a replacement conservatory. It is not within our remit to say whether the landlord must do this. However the landlord does not appear to have taken into account the impact the removal of the conservatory will have on the resident. It has not visited the resident and has only communicated via email. This is service failure.
  11. The resident has told us she is worried the landlord may go on to ‘condemn’ other areas of her property if it falls into disrepair. She worries that if the main roof started leaking she may lose her home instead of the landlord repairing it. While the landlord has repairing obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act, this shows the level of anxiety and distress experienced by the resident.
  12. The landlord should therefore visit the resident and reassure her it will repair other areas in the property as needed. It should see the property in person and understand the impact that losing the conservatory would have on the resident. A visit may assist agreement and compromise regarding further work and the relocation of the freezer. While a home visit and discussion may not alter the landlord’s decision, the resident may feel listened to and perhaps treated more fairly.
  13. There was service failure in how the landlord handled its decision to remove the conservatory. While it was reasonable to base its decision on the contractor’s inspection, the landlord has not addressed the impact on the resident. Communication via email was not sufficient given the impact it will have. The landlord is ordered to visit the resident to discuss next steps before the removal of the conservatory. This would allow the resident to further understand its reasoning and the landlord to better understand her position.
  14. A sum of £50 compensation is also ordered, in accordance with our remedies guidance for this level of service failure. It is in recognition of the distress caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its decision to remove a timber conservatory from the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence is has:
    1. Visited the resident for a meeting before the removal of the conservatory. This is to consider further arrangements, such as relocation of the freezer. It should offer reassurance and clarification regarding future repairs to the property.
    2. Paid the resident £50 compensation for the distress caused by its handling of the decision to remove the conservatory.