Yorkshire Housing Limited (202307987)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307987

Yorkshire Housing Limited

15 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request to build an outbuilding in the garden of her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
On 4 November 2022, the resident submitted an improvement application request to the landlord, to build a full width shed/garage in her garden. In the application form, the resident explained she planned to use the shed/garage to store and fix her car and her children’s bikes and scooters.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and stated her improvement application request had been declined, due to the unsuitability of the proposals and unsafe access. On the same date, in a separate email, the landlord explained the resident could put in writing the points she disagrees with, and it would raise a stage 1 complaint response.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 19 January 2023. She explained she did not agree with the safety concerns the landlord raised as she stated that the only manoeuvring of vehicles would be her own car. The resident also stated that she was unhappy that her neighbour’s improvement requests were accepted, but her request was declined. The landlord did not log this email as a complaint.
On 22 March 2023, the landlord logged a complaint for the resident. The landlord’s notes state that the resident disputed its decision to decline her improvement works application.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2023. It explained that its surveyor declined the resident’s application for the outbuilding because of safety and security concerns. The landlord also explained that it had reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement, which included a clause that the resident should not improve or alter the premises during her period of occupation. It also explained that it had asked its tenancy management team to investigate improvements completed at neighbouring properties.
On 27 March 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. She stated she disagreed with the landlord’s response, as the outbuilding she requested would not be a permanent building and would be constructed of wood rather than brick and cement. The resident confirmed if she ever left the property, she would restore the garden to its former state. She also explained since her email sent on 19 January 2023 to the landlord, it had not written or spoke to her about the concerns with the improvement works.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 17 April 2023. It explained that it had declined her application to build and install a 19 x 21 foot outbuilding. The landlord acknowledged that its previous response in its stage 1 complaint response about the clause in the resident’s tenancy agreement was incorrect and confirmed that she does have the right to improve provided the necessary permission is in place. It explained the reasons the outbuilding request had been declined, which included the following:
1. It may create future letting problems.
2. It would create an unacceptable annoyance or nuisance to neighbours and create health safety issues.
3. It would detract from the general appearance of the property or development.
4. It would need removing if the property were to be relet.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated she was in the process of moving to an alternative property, therefore her desired outcome was for the landlord to pay her compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request to build an outbuilding in the garden of her property.

The landlord’s improvement policy explains that all requests for improvements should include the following:
1. A description and reason for the proposed improvements.
2. One written quotation for the work being carried out (where applicable).
3. Copies of plans and drawings (where applicable).
In addition, the policy explains it would refuse permission for an improvement, if the improvement would:
1. Create future lettings problems.
2. Devalue the property.
3. Create an unacceptable annoyance or nuisance to the neighbours.
4. Create health and safety issues.
5. Detract from the general appearance of the property or development.
6. Cause structural problems to the property.
7. Need removing before the property could be relet, and this work would be at an unreasonable cost to the landlord or if the tenant has had notice served to them.
The landlord’s improvement policy does not include a timescale of when it would normally provide an outcome on an improvement request. However, the Ombudsman would usually consider 4 weeks a reasonable time period to respond to an improvement request, unless there are specific reasons to warrant a longer time period.
On 4 November 2022, the resident applied to the landlord to request improvement works. As part of the application, she requested to build an outbuilding in her garden, which was a full width shed/garage.
Following the resident’s application submission, there was a slight delay by the landlord communicating its decision about the requested improvement works. Due to this, the resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023, requesting an update on her application.
The landlord responded to the resident’s update request by email and explained that the organisation had refused the application on the grounds of unsuitability of proposals and unsafe access. The landlord failed to apologise for the delay in responding to the application and also it did not issue the resident with a refusal letter with a further explanation of why the resident’s improvement request had been refused. This was unreasonable.
As the landlord failed to provide a detailed explanation in its initial refusal email, the resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2023 and requested a full explanation about the safety concerns and suitability issues. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that its internal policies state no shed can be any bigger than 8x6ft, the outbuilding the resident wanted to erect covered half the area of her garden. In addition, it stated the resident stated vehicles may be serviced from the proposed outbuilding during her visit to her home, yet on the initial application, the issue was related to drainage and inadequate storage. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable about why the outbuilding request had been refused. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide this detailed explanation when it initially rejected the improvement works application. In addition, it would have been good practice for the landlord to provide the resident with a refusal letter explaining its reasons.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her improvement works application and submitted a complaint to the landlord. The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that its surveyor declined the improvement works application due to safety and security concerns.
The landlord provided a more detailed explanation in its stage 2 complaint response sent in April 2023 about the reasons why her request to build the outbuilding was declined. It explained the outbuilding would create future letting problems, as the property was a family home, future tenants would look for garden space for their children to play in. The landlord also stated that the improvement would create an unacceptable annoyance or nuisance to neighbours and create health and safety issues, because based on the site plan, access to the outbuilding would be narrow and could cause damage to neighbours’ cars. Also, it stated that it would not grant permission for the resident to repair vehicles within the outbuilding. Furthermore, the landlord explained the outbuilding would detract from the general appearance of the property or development because the building would not be of a similar design to the site, and it would be detrimental to her neighbour’s enjoyment of their own garden. It also explained that the resident would need planning permission due to the size of the outbuilding. Finally, the landlord explained the outbuilding would require removal if the property were to be relet and this would be an unreasonable cost to the landlord.
The landlord provided a detailed explanation to the resident about why her improvement request for an outbuilding to be built in her garden had been declined, and the reasons provided were in line with its improvement policy. However, the landlord’s initial communication about the outcome of the resident’s improvement request lacked detailed which resulted in the resident asking for further clarification. In addition, there was a delay in the landlord communicating the outcome to the resident. Therefore, considering this, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to build an outbuilding in the garden of her property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor communication. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

The associated complaint.

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales as referenced in the Code.
The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days of receiving it.
The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or actions on its behalf affecting a resident or group of residents. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same complaint definition as the Code.
The landlord failed to log the resident’s email from 19 January 2023 as a complaint in line with the timescales referenced in its own complaints policy and the Code. This was unreasonable. The resident expressed dissatisfaction and provided valid complaint points for her emails to be considered as a complaint. Its delay in logging the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, causing her inconvenience. The landlord eventually logged a complaint for the resident on 22 March 2023, which was approximately 2 months after the resident sent her initial complaint.

Considering the landlord’s delay in logging the resident’s complaint, there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the error and pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to build an outbuilding in the garden of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its delay in logging her initial complaint email.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s request to build an outbuilding in the garden of her property.
3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.