Southend on Sea City Council (202450515)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house with her adult children. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including Raynaud’s disease, a heart condition and a vitamin D deficiency. The resident complained that she wanted the landlord to remove a concrete shed from her garden and for it to build a kitchen extension. The resident asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the request for:
   1. shed removal.
   2. a kitchen extension.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for shed removal.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for a kitchen extension.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. In summary, we found that the landlord:
   1. Did not respond fully to the resident’s request that it remove the shed due to her medical condition.
   2. Did not follow through with action it agreed to inspect the shed for outstanding repairs.
   3. Did not provide a complaint response that fully addressed all points raised.

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.

Recommendations

9. Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. We have not seen any records from 2016, when the tenancy began, relating to the shed. It is therefore unclear what the resident discussed with the landlord about this. The landlord’s lettable standard states that it will remove all “resident installed” sheds as part of the voids process. The landlord noted internally in March 2020 that the resident was told at the start of her tenancy that the shed “came with the house”. The landlord noted the shed is constructed from concrete. We have seen no evidence it had been installed by a previous resident and should therefore have been removed by the landlord during the void period.
11. The landlord told the resident in 2020 that it did not remove “brick built” sheds unless there was a structural issue. It also said its surveyor had inspected the shed and considered it to be structurally sound and repairable. It completed some repairs to the shed later in 2020.
12. When the resident complained to the landlord in January 2025, she did not say she had any structural concerns about the shed. The landlord’s complaint response appropriately considered whether it had previously agreed to remove the shed. Its position on this was reasonable. But there was more it should have done to address her request that the shed be removed to help with her medical condition. Its complaint responses did not attempt to address this at all.
13. The landlord told us it does not have a property improvement/adaptions policy. Such a policy would help to provide its staff with clear guidance on how to respond to requests for improvements or adaptions. Given what the resident had said about her medical conditions, the landlord should reasonably have directed her on the process for disabled facilities grant (DFG). It is unclear whether she would have been eligible for such a grant. However, clear information from the landlord would have allowed her to explore this.  As the resident had also raised concerns that it had not properly recorded her medical conditions, it should also have confirmed information it held about these. That it did not take these actions was a failing.
14. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it would arrange for a building surveyor visit to check on any outstanding shed repairs. However, there is no evidence it subsequently attempted to arrange this with the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response made no reference to this, and the resident told us she did not hear again from the landlord about it. The landlord noted internally that repair work identified in 2020 had been completed. But it had committed in its stage 1 response to inspecting the shed for outstanding repairs. It should have done so.
15. The resident had also said the shed was making the garden inaccessible due to “uneven ground”. It should have attended to inspect the shed and concerns about the ground around it. This would have shown it had appropriately considered any work that was within its repairs obligations. That it did not follow up to arrange to inspect issues as agreed was a failing.
16. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the house. These obligations would typically not extend to sheds/outbuildings. The resident’s tenancy conditions set out the landlord’s repair obligation. However, these and the tenancy agreement do not refer to outbuilding/shed repairs.
17. The resident’s complaint to the landlord, and us, was focused on her request that it remove the shed. However, there was some lack of clarity in the landlord’s communications about repair responsibilities. It said in its stage 1 complaint response that responsibility for shed repairs lay with the resident. But it went on to say in the same response that it would inspect the shed for outstanding repairs.  If it planned to take this action exceptionally, it would have been better for it to clearly explain this. Doing so would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations for future repairs. That it did not do so was a failing.
18. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident aimed at recognising the impact of the failings identified. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

19. The resident asked the landlord to provide her with a kitchen extension and set out her belief that she had been denied this as a previous tenant refused this work. In its complaint response the landlord said that it had nothing on file to suggest it had discussed or approved a kitchen extension.
20. We acknowledge the resident believes the landlord has completed work to extend neighbouring properties in the past. The landlord explained in its complaint response that these properties may be privately owned. Not landlord owned. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had agreed a kitchen extension, or that it had previously been requested by the resident. Such work would not fall within the landlord’s repair obligation under the tenancy agreement. Instead, it is an improvement which it is not obliged to undertake. The landlord outlined in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not its policy to extend properties, unless there were exceptional reasons. It appropriately directed the resident to information from the council to apply for disability adaptions if she believed this may apply to her. That was reasonable.

21. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord’s provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response within timescales set out in its policy.
22. As set out above, the landlord’s complaint response failed to fully respond to the resident about her request for the shed to be removed due to her medical conditions. In line with the Code, the landlord should have ensured all points of the complaint had been fully addressed. That it did not do so was a complaint handling failing. This has resulted in the resident not receiving a full response to her concerns. In line with the remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord apologise for this failing.

Learning

23. The landlord should ensure it responds in full to all points of a complaint.
24. The landlord should follow up and complete actions set out in its complaint responses.

Communication

25. While the landlord communicated appropriately with the resident about the progress of her complaint, its response should have been clearer on the responsibility for shed repairs.