London Borough of Havering Council (202323075)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323075

Havering Council

6 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the use of a pram shed.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 9 July 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block.
3. On 11 July 2023, the resident raised a complaint. In summary she said:
   1. She had been told that a pram shed at the block was no longer hers as she did not need it. She disagreed as she was expecting a baby so required somewhere to store a pram close to her flat.
   2. She had not been offered an alternative but was aware that her neighbour had. She felt that she was being discriminated against because she was a single parent.
   3. The stress of the situation was impacting her health.
4. On 24 July 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. It understood that it had previously offered the resident the use of the pram shed, which meant that she had put new locks on it. It had then asked the resident to hand it back.
   2. This was because it had incorrectly allocated a pram shed to the resident when it had already allocated it to someone else.
   3. In order to resolve its error and allocate the shed fairly, it had assessed each person’s need. It had considered each person’s need for storage of a pram, age of children, and details of any disabilities of either parent or child.
   4. On completion of this assessment, it had to ask the resident to return the keys as there was a higher need for someone else.
   5. Unfortunately, it had no alternative storage solutions. It upheld the resident’s complaint and explained that if she could provide a copy of the invoice or receipt for the cost of the lock it would reimburse her.
5. On 12 September 2023, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage 2. She said the shed had been assigned to her when she moved in. She was told she had to give it up as her neighbour had a higher priority for it. She was advised to get back in touch if her circumstances had changed. Her circumstances had now changed, and she required a pram shed. She suggested that the shed now be returned to her or one with the same dimensions provided in the communal garden.
6. On 3 October 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. In summary it said:
   1. It had not seen any evidence to show that it had advised the resident that she would have use of the shed when her tenancy began. It had spoken to her in October 2022, and she had agreed to vacate the cupboard.
   2. A complaint was then received after a handwritten note was put on the cupboard door in October 2022. The note said that the contents had been moved to the communal area and would be put in the bin. The landlord had not written this note.
   3. It considered its decision then to assess which resident had the greatest need was the fairest way to resolve the matter, as both residents had been allocated the shed.
   4. It did not have an abundance of storage areas for prams and was unable to provide a shed in the garden. It was satisfied that it had addressed all the issues in its stage 1 complaint response.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied. She said she had stored her belongings in the shed for a year but now had to store the items in her property, which was making her home cluttered and unsafe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being discriminatory. In accordance with paragraph 42.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide.
9. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord. In particular, the resident disputes that the neighbour has a greater need for the pram shed. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the neighbour’s need is greater. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the allocation of the pram shed was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the use of a pram shed

10. The landlord’s goodwill gesture and discretionary payment policy states that it can make goodwill or discretionary payments. Payments can be made to residents for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
11. The tenancy agreement does not include any terms that state that the landlord must provide a storage/pram shed, and the rent and service charges do not include rental of a storage/pram shed.
12. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It explained how the error had occurred and apologised. It is unclear, however, how it had been able to determine what happened. The records provided to this Service do not show how it concluded that it had allocated the shed to different residents at the same time. There was some internal communication which confirmed this belief but there were no clear records showing how it recorded allocation of its sheds on its systems. An order has therefore been made below for it to consider how it records this information to try to avoid the issue happening again in the future.
13. The landlord did, however, explain how it had sought to remedy the issue. It used criteria to assess which resident had the greatest need to use the cupboard. It then allocated the cupboard accordingly. This approach was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
14. The landlord reiterated its position within its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that there was no evidence to show that the cupboard had been allocated to the resident at the commencement of her tenancy. The landlord then stated that it had spoken to the resident on 11 October 2022, and that she agreed to vacate the cupboard. There are no records to show this conversation, which is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
15. The landlord said that a complaint was then received because contents had been moved from the pram cupboard to the communal area and a note left on the door. The evidence provided shows pictures which support this, but it is unclear when this happened. The evidence also shows that the need criteria was put to the resident for her to comment on in June 2023. The outcome was then communicated to her on 11 July 2023, which led to the resident having to surrender the use of the cupboard and raising her stage 1 complaint.
16. In summary, the landlord acknowledged its failing. It then sought to try to resolve the issue fairly between both residents by assessing need. It offered to reimburse the resident for the cost she had incurred for the lock she had purchased, which was appropriate. It did not, however, consider whether a goodwill or discretionary payment was appropriate for the inconvenience caused in accordance with its policy. The resident had been put to the inconvenience of having to find alternative storage as well as time and effort arranging to surrender the use of the cupboard.
17. The landlord also failed to consider whether there were any learning outcomes to ensure that the issues did not re-occur in the future. The Ombudsman considers these failings amount to a service failure. An order will therefore be made below for the landlord to pay £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the pram shed.

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the pram shed.
    3. Reimburse the resident for the cost of the lock subject to her providing details of this if it has not done so already.
20. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to review its approach to allocation of its sheds, considering the failings identified in this case. Particularly:
    1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store its allocation information accurately.
    2. Satisfying itself that there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in recording and knowing where to check this information.
21. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this service, also within 8 weeks.