Colchester City Council (202322371)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322371

Colchester City Council

24 July 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 decision to request the resident to remove a conservatory.

Background

2. The resident is a joint tenant of the landlord (a local council). He holds a secure tenancy and lives in a 3-bedroom terraced house.
3. In May 2022 the landlord conducted an inspection at the resident’s home and found that there was an unauthorised conservatory. The landlord sent a letter to the resident to confirm the inspections findings. However, the resident made a right to buy (RTB) application – this meant that any action relating to the conservatory was put on hold.
4. In May 2023 the RTB application was withdrawn, and the landlord issued a community protection notice which advised the resident he must remove his conservatory. Following this, the resident made a formal complaint on 18 July 2023, he said:
   1. the conservatory had been in place since 2009 when he moved in
   2. the landlord had conducted various inspections of the property since 2009 and the conservatory had never been an issue
   3. the decision to ask for the removal of the conservatory was not fair and he was distressed at the situation
   4. the landlord should reconsider its decision and allow him to keep the conservatory
5. A stage 1 response was sent on 4 August 2023. The landlord said:
   1. it had found no written permission for the resident to construct a conservatory
   2. its Tenant Alterations Policy did not allow conservatories, and the conditions of tenancy stated that the resident needed to seek written permission for any alterations
   3. its Asset Management Team wrote to the resident in June 2022 and said no retrospective permission would be given, and the conservatory must be removed, but this had been put on hold while a RTB application was in progress
   4. as the tenancy conditions and policies were clear the complaint was not upheld, and the removal of the conservatory must take place
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 August 2023 repeating the conservatory was in place before he moved in. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 18 August 2023, it said:
   1. a tenancy audit had taken place on 15 December 2015, and the resident had said he wanted to install a larger conservatory
   2. its records show that it responded to this request and said the resident needed to write in and detail his request, however, no record of this written request had been found
   3. it had conducted other inspections related to repairs and energy performance, but these inspections would not pick up on unauthorised alterations
   4. following a complaint made about the conservatory it conducted an inspection in May 2022 and advised the resident he needed to remove the conservatory in June and August 2022
   5. following the withdrawal of his RTB application, the landlord commenced enforcement action
   6. a review of its inspection processes would be undertaken to ensure a more joined up approach as the unauthorised conservatory could have been picked up sooner
   7. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as even if the conservatory had been in place prior to him moving in, this did not deflect from the requirement to follow the relevant conditions and policies
7. The resident referred his complaint to us in November 2023. He was unhappy that the landlord upheld its decision and wanted to keep the conservatory in place.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s request to remove a conservatory

8. The resident’s tenancy conditions regarding alterations says that the resident must not alter the home (except for normal decorating), or fix anything to it, without first getting the landlord’s written permission. It also says that the landlord can take away permission if the alteration causes a nuisance.
9. The landlord published a Tenant Alteration Policy in April 2018. This said unacceptable alterations where written permission would not be provided includes conservatories. The policy also said an inspection could be completed to decide if retrospective permission could be granted, but if this was not given then a resident will be asked to remove the alteration.
10. We understand that the resident’s main point of dispute is that the conservatory was in place prior to him accepting and moving into the property. A tenancy audit checklist dated 5 October 2010 does say that a “lean to” was already in situ at the start of the tenancy. This does support the resident’s point that a structure was attached to the property prior to him moving in.
11. However, evidence also shows that on 16 December 2015 following a tenancy audit, that the resident wanted to repair or make bigger the ‘conservatory’ and that the landlord told him to write and give full details of the planned work. There is no evidence that any written permission was requested to amend, alter or erect a conservatory.
12. Following a complaint from a neighbour about the conservatory the landlord conducted an inspection in May 2022 and considered the conservatory that was erected to be unauthorised. As part of the inspection the resident told the landlord that the original wooden structure had been replaced or upgraded to a UPVC conservatory.
13. The landlord issued a letter to the resident on 24 May 2022. This clearly explained that the resident had not acted in line with his tenancy conditions and that the conservatory did not align with its alterations policy. This was a reasonable decision that was in line with its policies. While a lean to may have been in place at the time the tenancy was accepted, the resident had repaired or changed this to a UPVC conservatory sometime after December 2015.
14. The landlord’s policy says that even if it had given permission, that this permission could be taken away if the alteration causes a nuisance. Therefore, it was entitled to inspect the property following the neighbours complaint. As part of this inspection it considered whether it could provide retrospective permission. However, as its own policy specifically says that it will not permit conservatories the decision to request this to be removed was reasonable.
15. In addition to the above, the landlord delayed taking enforcement action while the resident had an open RTB application. There is no obligation for the landlord to have done this and shows that the landlord was acting fairly taking into consideration the resident’s individual circumstances.
16. As part of its complaint handling the landlord clearly and fully explained its position. While it did not uphold the resident’s complaint it did recognise that its inspections could be more ‘joined up’ to ensure it was able to recognise issues quicker. This shows that the landlord was using its complaint handling to identify areas that could be improved in the future. This is a positive action as continuous improvement is an important part of any complaint handling process.
17. Based on the above the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to request the removal of the conservatory. This is because the landlord acted in line with its own policies and considered the resident’s individual circumstances when making its decision.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to request the resident to remove a conservatory.

Recommendation

19. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the next steps in removing the conservatory, and any repair responsibilities to the property following its removal. For example, the resident is concerned that removing the conservatory may leave damage to her home or a ‘hole’ where the conservatory is – as there is evidence of a ‘lean to’ being present before the tenancy was taken over, the landlord may want to discuss what responsibility for repairs it will have.