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

East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202115738)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115738

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

11 November 2022


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 an extension.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a four-bedroom property with his wife and their four children. The children have complex additional needs. In July 2020 an occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment at the resident’s property. They concluded that the resident’s daughter should have a bedroom of her own, due to her needs. The OT recommended the landlord to look at ways to provide an additional bedroom within the property.
  2. Around a year later, the landlord responded to a complaint made by the resident about the time taken to move forward with building an extension. It apologised for the delay and said it had experienced issues with both the Covid-19 pandemic and a restrictive covenant on the property. The landlord proposed to carry out a full survey of the property, and then once the plans were approved by the resident and the OT, it said these would be sent to the developer to obtain consent for the proposed extension. The landlord confirmed there was no problem with it agreeing to the work or funding it, and that the main issue was gaining the consent of the developer due to the restrictive covenant.
  3. In August 2021, the landlord arranged for a second OT to carry out an assessment. This therapist also recommended the resident’s daughter have her own room.
  4. After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It said it had not yet had a response from the developer regarding consent for the proposed extension, but said it would chase this. The landlord also said that, to prevent further delays, its technical staff would be preparing all necessary consents including tenders for the work.
  5. The landlord later received consent from the developer to build the extension. The landlord informed the resident that it would be moving forwards with the extension, and a surveyor would prepare a detailed scheme. The resident understood this would happen before the end of 2021. The resident advised this Service in May and June 2022 that the plans had still not been done, and that he had made several attempts to obtain updates from the landlord about this, but it had not responded to him. He explained the impact that the delay was having on him and his family.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the interests of achieving a resolution to this case, this investigation has considered some events that occurred following the completion of the complaint under investigation. Specifically, the landlord’s failure to begin building the extension that it acknowledged still needed to be done at the time of the complaint. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process as this Service expects landlords to follow through on agreements made during its complaints process.
  2. The landlord does not have a written policy on dealing with disabled adaptations to properties. However, the landlord accepts that it is willing to build and pay for the extension so that the resident’s daughter can have her own bedroom. This was appropriate given the recommendations of the two OT assessments that were completed.
  3. It is apparent that there was around a two-year delay after an OT initially confirmed in July 2020 that the resident’s daughter would need her own room, as the build had still not started as of June 2022. Also, it seems that no action at all was taken between July 2020 and the date the resident complained to the landlord, which was around July 2021.
  4. The landlord has told this Service the delay was caused by the initial OT leaving their employment, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic. It says an added complication was the need to obtain consent from the developer due to a restrictive covenant on the property.
  5. It is appreciated that there were two UK-wide lockdowns between July 2020 and July 2021 due to Covid-19, and that these would have likely impacted the landlord’s ability to carry out non-urgent work. However, the employment move by the initial occupational therapist ought not to have impacted the landlord moving forwards with recommendations made by that therapist as it was already aware of the OT recommendations at that point.
  6. It is not disputed that the property has a restrictive covenant which says that there should not be any structural alteration made to the property without the written consent of the developer. It is noted that the landlord arranged for the extension sketches to be drawn up in July 2021, and these were submitted to the developer in August 2021. The developer provided their consent for the extension in October 2021.
  7. Whilst it is accepted that the need to obtain the developer’s consent would cause some delays, the landlord ought to have been aware that the developer would need to see plans before making a decision over whether or not to grant consent. It was therefore not correct for the landlord to advise the resident in July 2021 that the main issue with proceeding with the extension was gaining consent from the developer, as the landlord had not even had plans drawn up at that stage. In fact, the consent was obtained from the developer in around two months, and so this was not, in the Ombudsman’s view, a significant factor in the time taken for the landlord to begin the build.
  8. The landlord advised the resident during the complaints process that it would seek to get prices and the earliest possible start date well before the winter months (of 2021). Despite obtaining the developer’s consent for the build in October 2021, the landlord did not move forward with the build. It explained to the resident in November 2021 that his preferred side extension was not possible (due to drainage issues), but confirmed that the rear extension could go ahead. The resident states that he was led to believe the landlord would arrange for its surveyor to draw up detailed plans for the extension before Christmas 2021, but as of June 2022, this had still not happened. The resident has confirmed that he does not know why.
  9. The landlord advised this Service in December 2021 that instructions would be given to its surveyor to prepare a detailed scheme. It is not known what has caused the further delay between December 2021 and June 2022, and it is also not known whether the landlord has now proceeded with building the extension. If the landlord has not started this, it should do so without delay given how long the resident and his family have been waiting for this.
  10. Whilst it is accepted that some of the delays were outside the landlord’s control (specifically, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the two-month delay whilst the landlord obtained the developer’s consent for the extension), it is considered that there were still unreasonable delays which the landlord should take responsibility for.
  11. There also appears to have been a lack of communication with the resident between July 2020 and July 2021, and then again from December 2021 until June 2022. Given the vulnerabilities of the family, the landlord ought to have ensured that the resident was regularly updated on the matter. The resident has explained how stressful he has found this process, including the lack of communication from the landlord, and how difficult it has been for him and his family as a result of the delays with his daughter not having her own room. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to recognise the impact its failings have had. 
  12. In calculating a suitable remedy for the service failures identified, the Ombudsman has considered its own guidance on remedies and arrived at a figure in line with cases involving maladministration where there has been no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an extension.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation to recognise the impact the delays in starting the extension have had upon him and his family.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident (and this Service) with a written report confirming expected timescales for commencing, and completing, the extension works at the property. This written report to confirm the steps it has taken to ensure that these works progress in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord to confirm and evidence its compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.