Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202203265)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203265

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

14 April 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 to reclassify her property from a three-bedroom to a two-bedroom property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the property is described as a three-bedroom house. The property was deemed under occupied and thereby subject to the under-occupancy penalty (more commonly known as the bedroom tax). This resulted from a provision of the British Welfare Reform Act 2012 whereby tenants living in social housing with rooms deemed “spare” face a reduction in Housing Benefit.
3. The resident disputed that one of the bedrooms in the property was a bedroom, contending that this room did not meet the size requirements to constitute being a bedroom. In an email to the landlord on 26 October 2021, the resident stated that she had notified the landlord sometime before that her “box room” was 55 square feet in size and, in order for it to be classed as a bedroom, it needed to be 70 square feet or more. Therefore, she wanted the property reclassified as being a two-bedroom property.
4. The landlord undertook some research into the matter, including seeking legal advice. In an email to the resident on 7 December 2021, the landlord said that as part of an annual gas service last year, the gas engineer measured the room. Based on those measurements and the legal advice it sought, the decision to classify the room as a bedroom would remain. In a further email on 16 December 2021, the landlord gave the resident the option to downsize to a smaller property.
5. However, the resident refused this offer. There was a gap in evidence after this, so it is unclear if any further conversations or actions took place. Contact resumed in February 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord, again requesting that the property be reclassified as a two-bedroom property. She also stated that the room was not measured correctly by the engineer. The landlord requested measurements of the room from the resident which she provided on 8 June 2022.
6. The resident complained that the room was very small and that it could not accommodate a single bed without blocking the door when opening and closing. She wanted the room reclassified as not being a bedroom.
7. The landlord responded on 15 June 2022. It stated that in line with the Housing Act 1985, a room of less than 50 square feet should not be considered a bedroom and a room between 50 and 70 square feet is considered as a bedroom for half a person (10 years of age or under). The measurement of the resident’s room taken by the gas engineer was 55 square feet and the measurement sent by the resident was 52.67 square feet, thus meaning the room was a bedroom for half a person. For this reason, the landlord did not uphold the complaint and stood by its decision to classify the property as a three-bedroom property. The landlord’s stage two response on 1 July 2022 reiterated the findings and its position in its stage one complaint response.
8. The resident brought her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her request to get her third bedroom reclassified as a box room. She believed that the measurements of the room had been incorrectly recorded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. It is not the Ombudsman’s role or remit to decide on the dimensions of a bedroom. Rather, this investigation considers the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries on the issue, and her subsequent formal complaint.
10. Furthermore, this Service cannot look at whether the resident should or should not pay the under-occupancy penalty. The role of this Service is to investigate the landlord’s action in relation to its obligations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reclassify her property from a three-bedroom to a two-bedroom property.

11. It is important to note that the landlord is not responsible for deciding whether the resident pays the under-occupancy penalty or not. This is a legislation put into place by the government. The landlord’s duty is to ensure it classifies its properties appropriately.
12. In line with the Housing Act 1985, a room between 50 and 70 square feet is a bedroom suitable for half a person (10 years of age or under). This legislation is up to date with any new or current changes that are presently in force. It should be noted that this legislation does not define what a bedroom is. It provides a guide to what should be considered when defining a bedroom. Ultimately, the landlord is responsible for deciding whether a room in its property should be classed as a bedroom.
13. The landlord’s decision was to classify the resident’s third room as a bedroom and it provided evidence and reference by way of the Housing Act 1985 to support its decision. There has been no evidence provided to suggest the landlord’s decision was incorrect or should be reconsidered. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably and it was appropriate in its decision making.
14. After the resident’s initial contact in October 2021, the landlord liaised with its solicitors and other housing department managers in order to understand its position. This was appropriate as the landlord already had measurements for the room which were taken the previous year and using these it found that the room fell within the category of a bedroom.
15. However, as the resident disputed the measurements that the landlord’s gas engineer had taken, the landlord requested the resident to provide her own measurements of the room so that it could investigate further. The resident’s measured the room to be 52.67 square feet in size as opposed to 55 square feet which the gas engineer had measured. The landlord’s approach was reasonable. It considered the resident’s concerns and gave her the opportunity to measure the bedroom herself so that she could be satisfied the measurements were correct.
16. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately. It offered the resident a chance to provide her own measurements as she had disputed the measurements provided by the gas engineer and it relied on guidance from legislation and legal advice to come to its decision.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to reclassify her property from a three-bedroom to a two-bedroom property.