South Tyneside Council (202118424)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118424

South Tyneside Council

23 November 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that a former outhouse at the property be rebuilt, given her concerns regarding the amount of space in her kitchen.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in April 2021. The property is a house. Formerly there was an outhouse connected to the kitchen of the property; the landlord’s records show that this was demolished in January 2019.
3. The resident raised a complaint in May 2021 as she did not feel that the amount of space in her kitchen was adequate for a family of five, noting that she needed to house her tumble dryer in her dining room due to the layout. She asked the landlord to rebuild the outhouse to allow additional space for her utilities and access to a downstairs bathroom. She believed that the outhouse should have been repaired instead of demolished, as it was critical to the layout of the property. She also raised concern that she was paying the same amount of rent as other tenants in the area in similar properties, despite having less space, and that she could see where the outhouse was previously due to the condition of the external wall of the property, which was now an eyesore. 
4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it would not reinstate the outhouse as this was not considered to be cost-effective. It was also satisfied that the resident had viewed the property and was aware that the outhouse had previously been demolished in January 2019, before the resident accepted the property. It explained that the outhouse had been demolished as the previous tenant had not reported the repair issues; by the time the repair was reported, the condition of the outhouse had deteriorated and it was deemed more cost-effective to demolish it than to repair it, due to its condition. It confirmed that the removal of the outbuilding had no impact on the amount of rent payable for the property and that the rent figure would only be recalculated if there were significant changes to the property itself, such as the removal of a bedroom.
5. In addition, it confirmed that it was satisfied that there was sufficient space before letting the property and that it had installed a new kitchen but did not usually provide a separate space for a tumble dryer. It offered to block one of the access doors to the kitchen and remove the unused larder cupboard to allow for more space to house her tumble dryer and asked the resident whether she wished to consider this. It identified that the condition of the external wall was not in a good condition as the internal brickwork had been exposed when the outhouse was removed and confirmed that works to re-point and clean the wall would commence on 12 July 2021. 
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord would not reinstate the former outhouse and downstairs bathroom. She added that the work required to the external parts of the property only began in September 2021 and that she continued to struggle with the restricted layout of her kitchen and the lack of accessible electrical sockets. She wanted the outhouse to be rebuilt as a resolution to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. As part of her communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concern regarding the level of rent payable due to the space lost with the removal of the former outhouse. Under Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or the increase of rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent advice from Shelter England (https://england.shelter.org.uk/) in relation to how to proceed with the matter if she wishes.
8. The resident has also expressed concern that the external works to the property were not carried out until September 2021 and that she was not satisfied with the works carried out. As this is a separate issue from the complaint raised with the Service, the Service cannot adjudicate on this at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to initially investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to resolve the matter. Given the amount of time that has passed, it is recommended that the landlord considers her concerns in line with its complaint process if requested as she may have been delayed in raising a new complaint about these issues whilst awaiting a response from this Service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that a former outhouse at the property be rebuilt, given her concerns regarding the amount of space in her kitchen.

9. In this case, it is not disputed that the outhouse formerly attached to the property was demolished by the landlord in January 2019, prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning in April 2021. The resident expressed concern that the outhouse was demolished without good reason and could have been repaired at the time. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining why the outhouse needed to be demolished at the time, within its complaint responses. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the outhouse was beyond economical repair at the time and recommended removing it.
10. There is no specific provision within the resident’s tenancy agreement which states that the landlord is required to provide a separate outhouse or utility room. Whilst the resident has advised that she was informed that the outhouse ‘might’ be rebuilt, there is no documentary evidence to show that this had been confirmed or agreed upon at any stage. In addition, the landlord also confirmed that the resident had viewed the property prior to accepting the tenancy and was aware that the former outhouse had previously been removed. It would be a resident’s responsibility to satisfy themselves that the property is appropriate for their needs before they sign a tenancy agreement. If they deem that the property is not suitable for their needs, the prospective tenant could then refuse the property. The landlord would not be obliged to make improvements to the property at the resident’s request and its decision not to rebuild the outhouse was reasonable given that the resident had accepted the property as it was.
11. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The landlord stated that the works the resident was requesting were not considered cost–effective. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, the landlord was reasonable in informing the resident that the works would also not be possible, due to the costs involved.
12. The landlord acted reasonably by offering to adjust the resident’s kitchen given her concerns about the layout, lack of space and inability to store her tumble dryer in the kitchen. The landlord’s empty home lettable standard states that the kitchen areas should be fit for purpose, clean and in working order with an electric cooker point fitted as standard. There is no specific provision for the inclusion of a separate tumble dryer space within the kitchen. The evidence shows that the kitchen was replaced some time before the resident moved into the property. It remains unclear as to whether this was before or after the resident viewed the property. The landlord was not strictly obliged to offer to make these alterations as these would be considered an improvement. However, it was reasonable for it to offer this as a means to make the kitchen more manageable for the resident and resolve her complaint given that it would not reinstate the outhouse. It is noted that the resident had refused this offer at the time of the complaint, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to keep the offer open if the resident wished to reconsider.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

13. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing its complaint responses at each stage in line with its complaint policy timescales of ten working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.
14. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint within its responses or address new concerns as a separate matter if the issue did not form part of the initial complaint. In this case, the resident raised concerns as part of her stage two escalation request regarding the position of the plug sockets in her kitchen; explaining that she could not use her cooker and microwave at the same time which was causing inconvenience. Whilst this issue was not raised as part of the initial complaint to the landlord, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have either addressed her concerns as part of its stage two complaint response, or, explained the reason why it could not do so and addressed her concerns as a separate matter.
15. There is no evidence to suggest that this aspect of the complaint has been addressed by the landlord or exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to comment further on the issue itself as the landlord needs to be given the full opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. However, the landlord’s failure to address this matter or confirm its position at an earlier date amounts to a failure and was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident who is awaiting a resolution. In view of this, the landlord is to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding this aspect of the resident’s complaint within four weeks.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that a former outhouse at the property was rebuilt and her concerns regarding the amount of space in her kitchen.
17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

18. The landlord is to contact the resident within four weeks to confirm its position regarding her concerns relating to the positioning of the plug sockets in her kitchen. It should also offer an apology for its failure to address this concern at the time of the complaint.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to address her concerns regarding the delay in completing works to the external parts of the property as agreed and the quality of the works carried out. It should consider this in line with its formal complaints process if requested by the resident.