From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Thanet District Council (202320019)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320019

Thanet District Council

30 April 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 handling of the resident’s query about the size of his property in 2023.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and the landlord is a council. The resident moved into the property in 2005, by way of mutual exchange. The property originally had 3 bedrooms. In 2002 an extension was built to add a fourth bedroom to alleviate overcrowding for the previous residents. The landlord did not update its records, or the rent account, until 2007. Therefore, the property was recorded as being 3-bedroom when the resident moved in, in 2005.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord in 2015, saying he was being charged rent for 4 bedrooms when there were only 3. The landlord investigated and provided a written response. It explained the property had been extended in 2002 and was made into 4-bedrooms. 
  3. On 7 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord again about the rent and the size of the property. The landlord informed him that records showed he was advised in 2015 of the reasons the property was reclassified to 4-bedroom. The landlord said there would be no change to the property size now. It said the resident could downsize if he felt the property was too big and he could claim a £1,000 downsizing payment.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 15 September 2023, stating he should not be paying for a 4-bedroom property when he only has 3 bedrooms. The landlord responded on 29 September 2023 and said records show a single storey extension was built in 2002 to provide a fourth bedroom as part of an overcrowding project. There was a delay in records being updated and so the system did not show the property as being 4-bedroom until 2007. The landlord reiterated that this had been explained to him in 2015.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint the same day and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. It apologised that the documentation did not reflect the property was 4-bedroom when the resident mutually exchanged in 2005. It said that, following legal advice and an inspection, the property was confirmed as 4-bedroom. As the resident had been informed of this in 2015, the landlord said he had “legally affirmed” the contract. It repeated its offer of downsizing and £1,000 payment.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us as he believes the landlord has illegally reclassified his property.

Assessment and findings

  1. While the historic complaint of 2015 is referenced for context, it is not assessed as part of this investigation. This is because we ask that complaints are raised with both landlords and us within a reasonable period. Given that no complaint was referred to us until 2023, our assessment is focused on events from September 2023 onwards.
  2. On 7 September 2023 the resident raised a query about the size of his property and the associated rent. The landlord looked into the history of the case and its records. This was appropriate to find evidence about what had happened. It was not expected the same staff who dealt with the original matter would be available. As the staff dealing with the query had no prior knowledge of it, it was reasonable for them to rely on the landlord’s records. This showed the resident was informed in 2015 that the property was 4-bedroom and the reasons for it.
  3. The landlord explained its decision in writing and informed the resident he could exchange to a smaller property if he wished and claim a £1,000 downsizing payment. This was fair and proportionate action from the landlord, based on the history and information regarding the case.
  4. Following receipt of the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord responded in line with its complaints policy and took the opportunity to fully explain its position. It referenced its previous advice from the 2015 complaint, and elaborated that the building regulations permission sought at the time showed a wall was created to provide a 4th bedroom with separate access from the hall. It was reasonable for the landlord to review these records and rely on them for its response. It clearly explained the reasons and evidence for the property becoming 4-bedroom.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that there was a significant delay in updating tenancy records following the works. The property was only recorded as 4-bedroom in 2007, despite the work being completed in 2002. This investigation cannot comment on the landlord’s actions at that time due to the years that have passed. However, the resident’s frustration is understandable given that the property was erroneously recorded as 3-bedroom when he moved in 2005.
  6. The landlord said it would arrange for an inspection to confirm the correct rent was being applied. Although the records showed the reclassification of the property to 4-bedroom, it was fair for the landlord to take this action to further assess and ensure it was correct.
  7. The landlord and a maintenance inspector inspected the extension on 12 October 2023 and concluded that, although the resident was using it as a dining room, it was classed as an additional bedroom. This was based on the fact there was uneven flooring between the room and the kitchen, which would not have been the case if it was meant as a kitchen/diner. It was also pointed out that the landlord would never have funded an extension to provide a dining area, only to alleviate overcrowding. There was also a door to the room from the hallway, which would not have been needed if it was not intended as a bedroom.
  8. The landlord showed and explained these factors to the resident during the visit. It was reasonable for it to confirm the property’s 4-bedroom status on this inspection, which supported its records.
  9. The landlord sought legal advice, which was appropriate in the circumstances. This stated there was a misrepresentation in 2005 when the resident moved in, as the landlord presented the house as 3-bedroom due to failing to update its records. Misrepresentation is defined as “a false statement that induced a person to enter into a contract.”
  10. Due to the time passed we cannot make an assessment of this misrepresentation. The legal advice went on to say that, if a person is made aware of a misrepresentation but chooses to continue with the contract, they cannot end it or seek damages. As the resident was informed about it in writing in 2015 and continued with the tenancy, the landlord’s legal advice suggests he affirmed the contract and has no legal recourse. If the resident wishes to challenge this point, he may wish to seek his own independent advice in that regard.
  11. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to rely on this legal advice. It issued its stage 2 response on 27 October 2023, within its target timescale, and explained it to the resident. It confirmed its conclusion that the property was 4-bedroom, a decision that was based on evidence from its records, the inspection and legal advice. It made the appropriate enquiries to determine this. There was, therefore, no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s query about the size of his property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s query about the size of his property.