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

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited (202303603)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303603

Bromsgrove District Housing Trust Limited

18 June 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 relates to the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the size of a bedroom, reports of rats, and the behaviour of a neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy agreement lists the property as a 3-bedroom house and the maximum number of occupants is listed as 6. The resident lives in the property with her partner and 3 children. Her 2 sons share a bedroom, and her youngest son was being assessed for autism at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 July 2022 and explained that:
    1. She had reported multiple issues since moving into the property, including instances of rats, where she needed to wait weeks for the matter to be resolved.
    2. She had problems with her neighbour, who had recently gone to her partner’s workplace and complained about a work vehicle being parked on the resident’s property. She did not feel that her family had any privacy as the same neighbour had access through her back garden. She had not heard anything back regarding her reports.
    3. She had called the landlord to raise her concern that there was not enough space in the property for her family. Her 2 sons (1 over 10 and 1 under 10) shared a bed in 1 room as there was not enough space for 2 separate beds. Her youngest son was under an assessment for autism and was unable to safely use a bunk bed.
    4. She had applied for a mutual exchange on 2 occasions; however, the landlord had rejected the applications. She explained that the situation was impacting her mental health, and she was not receiving any support from the landlord regarding the issues.
    5. She added that each time she tried to update her details to bid for properties on the landlord’s dedicated website, the system kicked her off and did not make the required changes. She asked the landlord to support her and her family in moving from the property.
    6. She added that there was a tree in the neighbours’ garden that hit her phone line, and she needed to have this replaced once already due to the damage caused. She had asked the neighbour to cut the tree back, but they had said they could not. She asked that this was investigated.
  3. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 29 July 2022 to measure the bedrooms in the property.
  4. In response, at stage 1 of its complaints process on 5 August 2022, the landlord explained the following:
    1. The house was recorded as being suitably sized for up to 6 people. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit, and they had reported that the size of the shared bedroom was 7.44 sq. metres, that 2 single beds would fit but there would be limited room for storage, and that a bunk bed would fit, but the resident had said this would not be suitable.
    2. Under the Home Choice Plus policy, the resident’s family did not meet the criteria to be assessed for an extra bedroom. The policy stated that the resident may be entitled to be assessed for an extra bedroom where the household contained a child who could not share a bedroom. This would apply to a child who was entitled to the care component of disability living allowance at the highest or middle rate, and by reason of their disability was not able to share a bedroom with another child.
    3. As the resident’s son was being assessed and was not currently diagnosed, they would not meet these criteria. It suggested that the resident rearranged the bedrooms to better meet the needs of her family. It sent the resident a link to a help page and confirmed that she could contact it for support using the website.
    4. It had responded to reports of pests on multiple occasions since 2019 and apologised for the impact this must have had. It had followed its pest control policy, but rodent issues were often ongoing, and it was difficult to eradicate them completely. The last report was in February 2022, and it hoped that the problem had now been resolved.
    5. It understood that the resident had experienced issues with her neighbour’s behaviour and most recently this was in relation to her partner’s van. It had confirmed on 27 July 2022 that there was no breach of tenancy by the work van being parked on the driveway. It added that if the resident felt she was being harassed by the neighbour, she could contact the police in the first instance, and it could work alongside the police if it received any reports. It had asked its environmental manager to contact her about the neighbour’s tree.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 11 August 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint and explained that:
    1. While the response said 2 beds would fit, they would not as there would be no room to walk around the beds and 1 bed would need to go against a radiator which was a health and safety risk. There would also be no room for furniture which was inadequate. Bunk beds were not possible because of the age gap between her sons and a safety issue with her youngest son.
    2. She did not understand how the house could home up to 6 people as a bunk bed would not fit in her daughter’s room either and she was unsure where the 6th person would sleep.
    3. She confirmed that there had not been an issue with rats for a few months. However, the pest control operative had said that there could be holes in the loft allowing pests through to the houses. This had not been looked at.
    4. She had initially been informed that she was in breach of her tenancy following a complaint from her neighbour about the van parked on her driveway due to a weight limit. She had argued that this was not the case and it had now been confirmed this was not a breach. She said that the neighbour’s complaint had impacted her and her family and felt she had no support from the landlord as they were pressured to move the vehicle initially. Contacting the police would not have been beneficial as it would have caused tension between her and her neighbour. She had not yet heard anything about the tree being cut back from the phone line and asked that this was investigated.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 August 2022, and the resident followed up with the landlord on 30 August 2022 as she had not received a response. The landlord apologised at the time and the complaint was passed to the landlord’s chief executive to manage. They visited the resident at the property on 31 August 2022 to discuss her concerns in person.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 September 2022 and explained the following:
    1. During the visit, the resident had discussed the size of the bedrooms in the property, the rent level for the property, the use of the loft for storage, damage to carpet on the landing, complaints from a neighbour and access to next door through the resident’s garden.
    2. It felt that it could have handled her concerns better at stage 1 as it did not visit the property to see the situation for itself which would have helped. It did not feel it had tried hard enough to review the issues experienced as a family, instead focusing on policy. It had recommended that a home visit was completed as part of its handling of complaints at stage 1.
    3. It understood her concerns about space after seeing the room and because of this, and the medical information she had alerted it to, it had arranged for her banding to be reviewed which it hoped would help in the search for a new property. It had explained that there was a lack of family homes around the area. It had asked that a loft light was fitted to allow her to use the loft space. It also confirmed that the rent was set based on the valuation of the property, and it had established that this was accurate.
    4. It noted that the situation with the resident’s neighbour was complex, and she had asked that no further action was taken at this stage. It confirmed that there was a right of way for the neighbour to access their garden through the resident’s garden. It added that an ASB case could be opened in the future should the resident feel this necessary.
    5. The chief executive had picked up the complaint due to staffing capacity issues and apologised for the delay in sending the complaint response.
  8. The resident initially responded to the landlord in September 2022 to confirm she remained dissatisfied that the banding would only be changed based on medical evidence rather than overcrowding due to the size of the bedroom. She also asked what was happening regarding the neighbour’s tree.
  9. On 27 September 2022, the resident’s banding was changed to “Gold Plus”. The landlord advised that this was to reflect the medical circumstances she had made it aware of. It was unable to assess the need for an extra bedroom as her son was not receiving disability living allowance at the medium or high rate. In February 2023, the resident provided additional information to the landlord confirming that her son now received the medium rate. The landlord’s records show that it updated the resident’s application so that she was eligible for 4-bedroom properties.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2023 and explained that despite being awarded a 4-bedroom housing banding, they were still stuck in the current property and receiving limited support from the landlord. She wanted the landlord to assist with options to help her family move to a bigger property. She added concerns related to damp and electrics.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the situation has impacted her mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. As part of her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident also raised issues of damp in the property and that her son had experienced an electric shock. The resident did not raise these issues to the landlord within the complaint we have considered, and this was not addressed within the landlord’s complaint responses. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints that relate to housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6, including the assessment of applications, the award of points or banding, or the operation of a choice based letting scheme dealt with by the local authority or any other body acting on their behalf, including housing associations, are best suited to be dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In view of this, our assessment focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the size of the bedroom and will not look at whether the resident’s banding was adequately assessed by the landlord under the allocations policy set for the local authority’s Choice Based Letting Scheme.

Policies and procedures

  1. Part X of the Housing Act 1985 sets out 2 standards, the room standard and the space standard, which explain the conditions in which a property may be assessed as overcrowded. If either or both standards are breached, a dwelling will be statutorily overcrowded. Section 325 – the room standard – is breached where 2 members of the opposite sex, who are not a couple, must sleep in the same room. Children under 10 are not considered in this calculation and bedrooms and living rooms are considered as sleeping accommodation. 
  2. Section 326 – the space standard – states that a child under 10 is considered as half a person for the purposes of assessing whether the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is more than the permitted number, considering the number and floor area of the rooms in the property available for sleeping (including living rooms). The standard further sets out that a room that is a minimum size of 70 sq. ft is suitable for 1 person to sleep in. The floor area of a room suitable for housing 1.5 people must be a minimum of 90 sq. ft.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a 2 stage formal complaints process. Responses would be given at both stages 1 and 2 within 10 working days except where the investigation has been unavoidably delayed due to the complexity of the case. The resident would be informed of the delay and any delay shall not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.

The size of a bedroom

  1. The tenancy agreement lists the property as a 3-bedroom house and the maximum number of occupants is listed as 6.
  2. The landlord initially acted reasonably in response to the resident’s complaint about her son’s shared bedroom being undersized by arranging for the bedroom in question to be measured. Its internal records show that this action was completed to assess whether the property was suitable for up to 6 people in line with what was listed in the tenancy agreement.
  3. The landlord confirmed that the shared bedroom was measured at 7.44 sq. metres. Within its stage 1 response, it confirmed that there was room for 2 single beds or a bunk bed. However, it failed to consider that the measured floor area of 7.44 sq. metres, or around 80 sq. ft, was less than the minimum floor area of a bedroom suitable for 1.5 people in line with the Housing Act, and the room was therefore not suitable for the resident’s sons to share.
  4. This by itself would not necessarily mean that the property was overcrowded, as the landlord would also need to consider the size and number of other rooms in the property suitable to sleep in. However, it has failed to provide evidence to confirm that the remainder of the property was measured to determine whether the property was listed incorrectly as being able to house up to 6 people, or considered overcrowded in line with the Housing Act, which would have been appropriate to fully assess the resident’s circumstances.
  5. The resident specifically asked on what basis the property was suitable to house up to 6 people in her escalation request but this was not addressed by the landlord within its subsequent response, and it remains unclear as to whether the property is accurately listed as a result. This should have been assessed in view of one of the bedrooms being undersized for 1.5 individuals.
  6. While this was a failing by the landlord, this may not have necessarily changed the outcome of the complaint, as the landlord ultimately confirmed that it would reassess the resident’s banding because of the visit to the property on 31 August 2023. It confirmed this was as the result of both the size of the property and medical information the resident had informed it of, involving her youngest son. The resident’s banding was reassessed on 27 September 2022 shortly after the landlord’s complaint response and she was provided with the highest banding threshold. It is noted that the landlord also changed her eligibility to bid on 4-bedroom properties in view of additional information it had been provided regarding her son’s health.
  7. In her submissions to the Ombudsman, the resident remained dissatisfied that she had not yet been able to move from the property and was not receiving support from the landlord. The Ombudsman understands that the demand for social housing is greater than the supply, meaning that the rehousing process can take time and the ability for the resident to move would depend on suitable properties becoming available. This is outside of the landlord’s control.
  8. However, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her current housing options to offer its assistance on maximising the possibility of a move, including via mutual exchange, or to other local areas should she wish. The landlord has also been ordered to consider whether the listed size of the property is accurate and whether this would have any bearing on the resident’s current priority for rehousing.

Reports of rats

  1. It is not disputed that the resident had experienced rats in the property intermittently since 2019. At the time of her complaint in July 2022, there were no ongoing reports. The landlord acted fairly within its responses to the resident by acknowledging the impact this must have had and noting that it had not received any further reports following previous works to address the issue in February 2022.
  2. In her escalation request on 11 August 2022, the resident raised specific concern that a pest control operative had said that there may be holes in the loft that allowed pests to move freely between properties, but that this had not been addressed. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not addressed by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have addressed this to provide a full resolution to the complaint at the time. It is, however, noted that there were no ongoing issues and the landlord’s failure to address this was unlikely to have caused any significant inconvenience to the resident. The landlord has also confirmed to the Ombudsman in its submissions in May 2024 that it had received no further reports of rats, suggesting that the matter was adequately resolved prior to the resident’s complaint.

Neighbour issues

  1. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the resident had raised concerns regarding her neighbour’s behaviour prior to her complaint albeit it remains unclear as to when she first reported experiencing this. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident had reported that the neighbour had gone to her partner’s workplace to complain about a work van parked on her driveway on 22 July 2022. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming its position that this was not considered to be a tenancy breach on 27 July 2022.
  2. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have confirmed how it could handle the matters internally through its ASB procedure rather than signposting the resident to the police at stage 1. While harassment can be considered a criminal matter, the landlord also had the opportunity to liaise with the neighbour regarding the resident’s report.
  3. The resident raised specific concerns about how the matter was handled and the lack of support from the landlord within her escalation request. This included that it had initially advised her that the work van parked in her drive was a breach of tenancy and that the van needed to be moved. It is noted that the resident had said that she did not want to pursue the matter further by opening an ASB case at the time of her stage 2 complaint.
  4. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed how it handled her concerns to more fully resolve the complaint and demonstrate it had fully considered whether it should have offered more support as the resident claimed. It also would have been helpful for the landlord to have offered some reassurance to the resident and to have confirmed that the neighbour had been informed that the van parked on the driveway would not be considered a breach.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming that it could open an ASB case in the future should she feel this was necessary and advising that there was a right of access for the neighbour through the resident’s garden. It is, however, noted that the landlord said it would check this within its stage 2 complaint response, and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord followed-up with the resident accordingly.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 August 2022, which was issued within its policy timescale of 10 working days. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 11 August 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2022, which was 22 working days later and outside of its policy timescales.
  2. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delay in its response at stage 2 and explaining the reasons for the delay (staffing capacity) to her. The overall timescale of 22 working days, while outside of the landlord’s published timescales at the time of the complaint, was only slightly over the timescale of 20 working days as recommended by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time. The landlord has since updated its policy timescales to match those recommended by the Ombudsman.
  3. It is noted that the resident also raised concern about a tree overhanging from her neighbour’s property and damage to her phone line as part of her complaint. While the landlord said it had passed the matter on, the resident confirmed that she had not heard anything further within her escalation request. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that this had been addressed.
  4. In view of the landlord’s failures to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint in full as set out above, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of her concerns. The failings may have not significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint; however, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that financial compensation is warranted in view of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint about the size of a bedroom, reports of rats, and the behaviour of a neighbour.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response and failure to address all her concerns in full.
  2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Arrange for the property to be measured and determine whether it is suitable for 6 people in line with the space standard as outlined in the Housing Act. It should update its records accordingly and consider whether the tenancy agreement or rent level for the property should be amended if this is found to be incorrect. It is to confirm the outcome to the Ombudsman and the resident.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss her current housing options and whether there are any further steps it can take to assist in maximising her chances for rehousing.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm whether she is still experiencing issues with an overhanging tree from her neighbour’s property.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to this Service within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns related to damp in the property and electric shocks. It should seek to resolve the issues if they remain outstanding and raise a new complaint should the resident remain dissatisfied with its handling of these matters.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to this recommendation within 4 weeks.