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

Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202309017)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309017

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

28 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for installing a dropped kerb at the property.
  2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy at the property, a 1-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy started on 15 September 2017 and ended when the resident moved out on 25 May 2023. The resident lived at the property with his wife, and the landlord noted that the resident suffered from a sensory impairment.
  2. The resident installed a dropped kerb to the property to enable him to park his car in the front garden of the property in 2019. This work was completed in August 2019.
  3. The resident initially contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023, after moving out of the property, asking the landlord to pay compensation for the money spent on the dropped kerb which had in his view improved the property. The landlord asked the resident for a copy of a permission letter in relation to the kerb and driveway. It later explained that the dropped kerb did not qualify for compensation as an improvement to the property.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2023. He stated he understood that written permission had been needed for the dropped kerb. However, he had added that the surveyor, who had been acting on behalf of the landlord, had granted the permission verbally and told him he did not need to contact the landlord for permission. The resident said that the surveyor had helped to remove the fence from the front garden and install a gate which could be opened to allow the resident to park his car there.
  5. In its stage 2 response of 19 July 2023, the landlord stated that dropped kerbs and driveways were not listed as improvements under its compensation policy. It accepted that there may may have been confusion over the issue of written permission being required, however it stated there was no detriment caused to the resident by this which would mean compensation was due.
  6. In referring the matter to this Service on 19 July 2023 the resident explained that he had suffered antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour throughout the time he lived at the property. Ultimately, as the landlord had not taken action in response to his reports, he said he had been forced to move out of his home. He noted that, despite the landlord being aware of the dropped kerb issue (as its surveyor and one of the contractors the landlord used being involved in the process), it had refused to pay any compensation for the improvement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has referred to the issue of longstanding ASB which he experienced from his neighbour. Although the resident felt the issue of the ASB and the request for compensation for the dropped kerb were linked, the ASB did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord in June 2023.
  2. Under paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider issues which have not been considered as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process, or which have not been referred to this Service within a reasonable time. As the issue of ASB was not investigated by the landlord as part of the stage 1 and stage 2 responses issued by it in June and July 2023, it has therefore not been considered as part of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports, he may choose to make a formal complaint to the landlord which can then be referred to this Service. If the resident has already received a final response to the issue of the ASB then he would need to make any referral to this Service within 12 months of the response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for installing a dropped kerb at the property

  1. The landlord’s tenant improvement policy sets out that tenants must seek its written permission for improvements and that it will not refuse consent unreasonably. It may refuse consent for improvements that make the property less safe or have an adverse effect on the value or its ability to let the property. The policy defines improvements and alterations as:
    1. Altering, improving or enlarging the house, fittings or fixtures.
    2. Adding any new fixtures or fittings (for example, kitchen or bathroom fittings or a satellite dish).
    3. Removing any fixture, fittings, installations or structures which were in the property at the start of the tenancy.
    4. Putting up a garage, shed, fence or other structure.
    5. Providing a place to park the car or carry out other major alterations to the garden.
    6. Decorating the outside of the house.
  2. The landlord’s policy sets out that, following a request for an improvement, it may need to carry out an inspection. Once it approves the work its property surveyor will decide whether the landlord will maintain any installation/alteration, whether the improvement needs to be left in position at the end of the tenancy, and whether it qualifies under the landlord’s compensation for improvement scheme. The policy adds that if work is carried out without permission, the surveyor will investigate the matter and if the work is satisfactory “retrospective permission should be confirmed in writing”. However, the policy sets out that the work would not then qualify for compensation for improvement.
  3. The tenant improvement policy set out details of compensation that residents would be entitled to in respect of improvements and alternation made by them to their properties. The policy provides a list of improvements which are eligible for compensation. The list includes loft insulation, double glazing and rewiring. The list however contains no mention of driveways or dropped kerbs as being an eligible improvement for the purpose of compensation. The policy also does not specify that the list contained within it are merely examples of improvements which are eligible and that other improvements not listed will also be considered for compensation.
  4. While the landlord has explained that the resident did not seek written permission from it, the resident has stated this was based on the advice given to him by the property surveyor, who was acting on behalf of the landlord. The landlord has provided this Service with notes taken of calls with the resident over the issue of car parking which occurred in September 2018 and January 2019. The notes of the call on 10 January 2019 state that the resident was advised to put his request in writing, and that he wanted a face-to-face meeting so that he could speak to someone about the matter. A visit was then made by the surveyor on 16 January 2019, at which point the resident informed the landlord that he would not be pursuing the issue of the drive at that time and would revisit the matter the following year. The landlord’s notes set out that the surveyor asked the resident to write to it for permission.
  5. The resident has provided evidence from his communication with the contractor which conducted the work following a quotation received in late June 2019, several months after his communication with the landlord’s surveyor. The resident asked the contractor whether it would be willing to receive the payment for the work (a total of £2,105) in 6 monthly instalments. The resident provided a further email from the contractor dated 27 August 2019 when the work for the dropped kerb had been completed.
  6. The resident has explained that the landlord would have been aware of the dropped kerb from both the contractor and the surveyor. He stated the landlord’s surveyor was involved in the removal of the fence outside of the front of his property and its replacement with a gate which would allow him to park in the front garden. The landlord said that the fence was initially changed as part of a pre-planned fencing replacement programme in 2019 to a number of properties in the area. However, following complaints from residents that the new fences limited “the delivery of grass cutting in the area” by its maintenance contractors, it installed new gates instead to those properties. While the contractor that carried out the work for the resident was also used by the landlord, it did not follow that the contractor would have informed the landlord of this work due to data protection.
  7. Regardless of whether written permission was obtained, the landlord’s policy sets out an exhaustive list of improvements for which the resident was able to make a claim for compensation. This closed list, which reflects eligible improvements recommended by the Housing Corporation, does not include dropped kerbs or driveways. While the ability to be able to park on the property could have been seen as a benefit to the next resident at the property, this meant that it was not an improvement for which compensation would be payable to the resident by the landlord. Overall, while the landlord initially concentrated on the issue of written permission, it acted appropriately by informing the resident that there were no grounds for compensation for the dropped kerb under the policy. A finding of no maladministration has therefore been made.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to resolve a complaint on the day that it receives it, but if it needs time to look into it, it will acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours. It will then provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord will escalate their complaint to stage 2. It will then respond within 20 working days. The policy states that the landlord will ensure that it keeps residents regularly updated on the progress of the complaint, even if there is no new information to provide. This policy is appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident complained on 15 June 2023. However, the landlord did not acknowledge his complaint until 7 working days later on 26 June 2023, when it phoned him. This followed the resident contacting the landlord on 24 June 2023 to inform it that it had failed to acknowledge his complaint within 24 hours in line with its complaints policy. Despite this, the landlord’s notes of the call made to the resident on 26 June 2023 contained no reference to an apology for the delay in it acknowledging the complaint. Neither was an apology offered in the landlord’s stage 1 response, which it did not issue until 6 July 2023, some 15 working days since the complaint had been made by the resident. There was no update provided to the resident between these dates except for the acknowledgment call by the landlord.
  3. While not all delays are considered to be a serious failing, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to follow its own complaints policy when the resident highlighted this. It missed opportunities to accept and apologise for this failure, both during its initial call to the resident and in its stage 1 response call and correspondence. In addition, the stage 1 response was not provided to the resident in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. While the landlord issued the stage 1 response within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgment, when measured against the date the complaint had initially been made by the resident this timescale was exceeded. The complaints policy did not specify that the stage 1 response would be made within 10 working days of when it acknowledged the complaint. 
  4. The landlord did not offer an explanation for the delay at either stage 1 or at stage 2. This was unreasonable, and the delay indicated a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling process. The impact on the resident would have been that it caused him a degree of distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman considers an award of £100 is appropriate for the service failure by the landlord. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure which had caused some degree of impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for installing the dropped kerb.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaints handling failure.