Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202305079)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305079

Yorkshire Housing Limited

5 July 2024

 

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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Request to reclassify his property as a 2 bedroom.
    2. Communication in relation to the bedroom issue.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident and his family have held an assured tenancy for the property since 2011. The property is owned by the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2021 querying the size of the third bedroom. The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the room who said it was large enough for a single bed. The resident disputed this, and further surveyors were asked to inspect in February 2021 and again in June 2021, but the resident said he was not notified. An inspection was done in November 2022 and the resident asked for the room not to be classified as a bedroom.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2023, and it said it would revert in 10 days. The resident’s MP made contact on 30 January 2023 and asked for a response and a complaint was raised.
  4. The stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2023 said that the landlord had failed in not responding before, but it would arrange for the correct surveyor to visit the following week. The landlord advised the resident on 17 April 2023 that it would not be reclassifying the bedroom as it was accepted as a 3-bedroom property when the resident signed the tenancy agreement, and there were no regulations specifying the size of the bedroom.
  5. The resident requested a review of the decision the same day and the final response was issued 11 May 2023. The landlord said it had taken legal advice and there were no grounds to change the classification.
  6. The resident wants the property to be reclassified a 2-bedroom house and a refund of additional rent paid from the start of the tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot make a decision on whether the third bedroom is too small to be categorised as a bedroom. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the landlord has applied its own policies and acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s concerns. Accordingly, this investigation gives no opinion on the classification itself.
  2. The resident says that he raised this matter when the tenancy began in 2011. There is no evidence of this, and it would not now be possible for the Ombudsman to consider issues from this long ago. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This report has therefore considered the matter only with respect to the resident’s queries on the issue since 2021.
  3. Part of the resident’s complaint is that he wants the rent reduced from the start of the tenancy as the property was classified as a 3 bedroom when it is a 2 bedroom. This issue of the rent amount is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. However, the Ombudsman is able to consider whether there has been a loss of amenity
  4. It follows that the resident’s complaint about the amount of rent he feels has been overcharged falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment

Reclassification

  1. New internal guidance was issued by the landlord in respect of room sizes in May 2023. This guidance was not in place at the time of the complaint so has no bearing on this investigation and would not change the outcome in this instance.
  2. The new guidance for landlord staff is that where existing tenants request a room reclassification, they should be reminded that they accepted the property with the bedrooms and room sizes offered, and the tenancy agreement is a binding contract.
  3. It would seem that the new guidance was a direct result of the resident’s complaint as this review was referred to in the complaint responses. The Ombudsman welcomes the landlord clarifying an issue for residents, and this will hopefully speed up its response to any future enquiries on this matter.
  4. In this instance, the resident explained that he had built a platform over the ‘bulkhead’ of the stairs which protruded into the bedroom. This was adequate when the resident’s son was younger, but it was too small for him now. However, the resident’s daughter had now moved out, the son moved into the second bedroom and the third was used for storage.
  5. The landlord said it had taken legal advice and it found that there were no regulations covering the size of bedrooms in single dwellings that were not new builds. This Service is not aware of any legal guidance or regulations that relate specifically to room size requirements for a property which is let on a single tenancy agreement and is formed of a single household.
  6. The landlord’s new guidance refers to local authorities discounting bedrooms under 4.6 square meters, although they would also count a living room as a sleeping space. The resident’s bedroom was said to have a floor space of 4.6 square meters, but the layout meant that the door could not be fully opened with the bed in situ.
  7. The landlord said that the resident had accepted the property with the rooms as they were in 2011 and the tenancy agreement was signed on this basis. The tenancy agreement provided does not confirm the number of bedrooms in the property. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the property was accepted on this basis, and it had been used as a 3-bedroom property from the start of the tenancy until recently.
  8. The landlord offered support to the resident to arrange a mutual exchange or to apply for a discretionary housing payment if there was an issue in respect of the ‘bedroom tax.’ The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord looked for ways to assist the resident with alternative options when it was unable to reclassify the room.
  9. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration around the bedroom. However, based on the evidence provided and the landlord’s obligations, the landlord investigated and sought legal advice to provide an accurate response. It has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it would not be re-categorising the property as a 2-bedroom house.
  10. There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the designation of his property as a 3-bedroom house.

Communication

  1. The resident initially contacted the landlord in January 2021. The landlord appointed surveyors to inspect the property on 2 occasions, but the resident says he was not aware of this. The landlord’s notes indicate that he was advised of an appointment on 17 February 2021, but there is no record as to how this was done.
  2. A note made in February 2023 indicates that the landlord had recorded the resident’s phone number wrongly, which may have been the reason he was not aware of the previous appointments. There is no evidence that the landlord had tried to make contact with a telephone call or by email to arrange the surveyor appointments. The matter was then left unresolved until the resident made contact again in November 2022.
  3. In its email of 11 January 2023, the landlord said it would respond to the issue about the bedroom in 10 days, but it failed to do so. It was only once an MP became involved that a formal complaint response was made on 7 February 2023.
  4. The response acknowledged that the landlord had failed by not contacting the resident when it should have, and it needed to improve how it updated the resident. No remedy was offered by the landlord to acknowledge this failing.
  5. The response said that a further, ‘stock condition surveyor’ would attend, as the surveyor who had attended in December 2022 was a ‘repairs surveyor’. The landlord should have ensured the correct surveyor was appointed in the first instance. This was a waste of the resident’s time and raised his expectations when inaccurate information had been given about the room.
  6. The landlord said it would contact the resident by 7 March 2023 once it had taken legal advice. It failed to do this, then emailed on 14 March 2023 to say it was waiting for the outcome of a management meeting the following week. On 6 April 2023, the landlord said that the further delay was a result of illness and annual leave.
  7. The resident chased again on 13 April 2023. The landlord replied on 17 April 2023 and said that there was no set size for bedrooms laid down in any regulations, and it would not be reclassifying the bedroom. The resident appealed the matter further and the stage 2 response reviewed the decision about the bedroom. It did not offer a remedy for the lack of response to the resident’s enquiries in 2021 and 2022 or the late update after the surveyor’s inspection in February 2023.
  8. Although the landlord’s responses to the resident’s formal complaints were within the published timescales, overall, its communication was poor, and it did not provide updates when it said it would. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response when it said lessons had been learned, but no compensation was offered. The resident had to chase the landlord and regardless of the decision on the bedroom, the landlord should have replied promptly.
  9. The landlord should pay compensation to reflect this poor service. The sum of £150 would be in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for cases where there is evidence of maladministration with no permanent impact. It is awarded when the landlord has acknowledged failings but made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 to reclassify the third bedroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication with the resident.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £150 in respect of the poor communication about the reclassification of the third bedroom.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above order has been complied with, within 4 weeks of this determination.