Orbit Housing Association Limited (202210331)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210331

Orbit Housing Association Limited

1 February 2023


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 response to the resident’s request for a replacement shed.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 25 May 2022 the resident enquired with the landlord about why it had replaced his neighbour’s shed but not his. He contacted the landlord again about the matter several times following this.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 1 July 2022 as he was unhappy that the landlord had yet to provide a response to his request for a replacement shed. In an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 7 July 2022, the landlord said that it could not discuss the neighbour’s circumstances and that tenancy agreements may differ between tenants.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 11 July 2022, in which it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s enquiries and confirmed it considered the replacement of the shed to be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 22 July 2022. It said that it did not consider the shed to be an “outbuilding” which the tenancy agreement stated was its responsibility to repair. It therefore maintained its previous position on the matter.
  5. The resident subsequently informed the Ombudsman that he continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace the shed, highlighting that his neighbour had their shed replaced by the landlord’s contractors. He said that the houses on the estate were built around 2000 and “each new house had a garden shed erected in the back garden”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the garages and outbuildings where provided by the landlord. The landlord’s repair responsibilities guide states that sheds are the tenant’s responsibility to repair and maintain.
  2. The landlord considered the resident’s tenancy agreement in reaching a decision on whether it would replace the shed. It concluded that the shed was not an outbuilding as defined by the tenancy agreement, and therefore it was not responsible for replacing it. This was reasonable given that the tenancy agreement does not explicitly confirm that the landlord is responsible for repairing the shed.
  3. The resident says that the shed was erected by the landlord when the property was built. However, this predated his tenancy at the property and no evidence has been provided to confirm whether the shed was installed by the landlord or a previous tenant. In any case, the tenancy agreement does not place a clear repairing responsibility for the shed onto the landlord. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to act in accordance with its repair responsibilities guide and inform the resident that replacement of the shed was his responsibility.
  4. Any tenant of the landlord has the right to confidentiality and it was therefore appropriate for the landlord to decline to discuss the reasons why the neighbour’s shed had been replaced. It was also a reasonable assertion by the landlord that the neighbour’s shed replacement did not imply any obligation to do the same for the resident. This is because the landlord’s repairing responsibilities are defined by the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, and as already established, there is no clear repairing responsibility in relation to the resident’s shed.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response apologised for its delay in answering the resident’s communication and advised that feedback had been provided to the appropriate staff. Landlords are expected to respond to enquiries in a timely manner and provide updates when there is a delay in responding. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failing in its complaint response and apologise for this. Given that the delay was not excessive and there was no evidence that it would have affected the outcome of the complaint, the landlord’s apology put this failing in communication right.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a replacement shed.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its procedures for handling residents’ enquiries and take any necessary remedial action to ensure that these are responded to promptly.