Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Crawley Borough Council (202426918)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426918

Crawley Borough Council

17 June 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 the resident’s request for permission to store and charge a mobility scooter.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom maisonette. She is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The resident had known vulnerabilities which included issues with mobility and anxiety.
  2. On 24 April 2024 the resident requested permission to build a shed to store a mobility scooter in the communal garden. On 18 July 2024 she raised a formal complaint due to the lack of progress with this request.
  3. The landlord responded on 26 July 2024 and accepted there had been a delay in taking action. It offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience this had caused. It confirmed that a site visit had been arranged for 29 July 2024.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 September 2024 due to issues with fulfilling the requirements for the permission to charge her mobility scooter. She was unhappy that a visual inspection of an internal door was required. The landlord responded on 11 October 2024 at stage 2 of its complaint process, it said:
    1. following the stage 1 complaint response it had progressed the matter promptly and made every effort to undertake necessary checks
    2. there was an issue with an electrical condition survey where 2 operatives turned up at the wrong time for an appointment – it apologised for the inconvenience this caused
    3. while its records showed a fire door had been installed an inspection was still needed to ensure the correct level of resistance
    4. it would also need to assess the condition of the fixtures and fittings for the door such as the hinges and smoke seals
    5. while it empathised with the resident and her anxiety about people coming to her home, this check was a requirement and needed to be done in person by a suitably qualified professional
    6. it partly upheld her complaint due to the inconvenience of the electrical condition survey and apologised for this, however, its position remained the same about the fire door inspection
    7. permission to store and charge the scooter could not be granted until this final step was complete
  5. The permission to install a scooter has yet to be given as the inspection of the internal door and its fire-resistant qualities has yet to be undertaken.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us in October 2024. She wants the landlord to accept photos of the door and to agree permission without entering her home.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the resident’s request on 24 April 2024 the landlord did not act promptly. The evidence shows that the Housing Officer chased internally on 26 April 2024, 2 May 2024, 25 June 2024 and 10 July 2024 for an update on how to proceed with permission but received no response. The time taken to begin the process was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
  2. This was made worse as the landlord did not keep the resident updated during this period. The resident raised a formal complaint due to the lack of progress and communication on 18 July 2024. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience which was highlighted by her formal complaint.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s home on 29 July 2024 and agreed that a mobility scooter could be stored in the bike store and the battery be stored and charged in the resident’s kitchen. It set out in a letter dated 31 July 2024 that permission would only be given if the resident followed certain rules, and:
    1. the socket used for charging was Residual Current Device (RCD) protected
    2. there was a valid Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR)
    3. the door separating the kitchen from the rest of the property was fire rated to 30 minutes
  4. This was reasonable, the landlord’s Disabled Adaptations policy explains that there are certain conditions to storing a mobility scooter due to the fire risk. And the landlord’s Fire Safety policy says that fire doors should be in place to a minimum of FD30 – fire resistant for 30 minutes.
  5. An electrician appointment was arranged for 13 August 2024 at 1pm to complete the EICR. Due to the resident’s medical condition, it was agreed that only one electrician would attend. However, 2 operatives arrived at the resident’s property in the morning of 13 August 2024 and the appointment had to be rearranged.
  6. This was unreasonable as the landlord knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities and had made specific adjustments to account for this. Failing to follow this adjustment was unfair and caused the resident some further distress and inconvenience.
  7. The appointment for the electrician was rearranged for 2 September 2024. The electrician attended on this date and confirmed the result of the EICR was satisfactory. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 September 2024 and said the only aspect outstanding for permission was a fire door check. The resident told the landlord that she did not agree to anyone else attending her property.
  8. Between 3 and 18 September 2024 the landlord discussed internally whether there were any alternative options to check the internal door other than a physical visit. It checked its internal repair records which showed that there was a fire door present and checked with its Compliance Manager whether photos of the door would be enough to satisfy checks. However, it was decided that to fulfil the relevant requirements for fire safety an appointment to view the door was needed.
  9. This shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and considered whether there were other options available to grant permission. The landlord’s decision that it could not safely grant permission without a physical check of the fire door was a reasonable stance to take.
  10. This is because while there is no legal requirement for an internal fire door, there is a heightened risk of a fire when charging a lithium battery. The evidence shows that while the internal door was a fire door, the contractor who installed this did not fit it as a fire door. Therefore, no risk assessment had been completed, nor any servicing requirements conducted to ensure the existing door continued to meet the right standards.
  11. While we understand the resident’s concerns, fire safety is an important aspect of a landlord’s responsibilities. It has clearly explained the need for the check and why a physical check was needed. The landlord has also offered to make any physical inspection as easy as possible for the resident. It has offered to arrange a time and date at the resident’s convenience, to attend with people that have already been to her property or limit the amount of people attending. It has said that it could come to the property when a family member or friend is present to help the resident. However, the resident has declined to allow the landlord to attend the property and conduct an inspection.
  12. In summary, the initial actions by the landlord were unreasonable as the time taken to begin the process for permission took too long and the communication was poor. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s actions improved. While there was an error in the EICR appointment, this was quickly acknowledged and progress of the relevant steps for permission was prompt. The landlord has explained what is outstanding and the reasons why it needs to complete a physical check.
  13. In its complaint responses to the resident the landlord:
    1. offered £50 for the inconvenience due to the time taken at the beginning of the process
    2. apologised for the EICR appointment mix up and the distress and inconvenience this caused
    3. explained that it was working on a formal policy for personal mobility devices which would provide clarity on requirements and ensure that the full range of inspections and considerations are known at the earliest opportunity
    4. was happy to work with the resident to arrange the fire door inspection which was the only outstanding requirement for permission
  14. When determining a complaint the Ombudsman must consider both the landlord’s failings and what it did to put things right. Its own compensation policy says that when there has been a clear service failure it could consider a payment of £25 per incident, but that this could be varied depending on the circumstances of a case.
  15. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a service failure that did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome of a case but caused some distress and inconvenience, a payment of between £50 to £100 is fair. Therefore, we consider that the landlord’s offer of £50 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to act promptly to the resident’s request is proportionate.
  16. When considering this payment alongside the other actions set out in its complaint responses, the Ombudsman considers that this is reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to store and charge a mobility scooter.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The landlord should consider contacting the resident again to explain the outstanding requirement and any reasonable adjustments it can make to help the resident.