Bromford Housing Group Limited (202105409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105409

Bromford Housing Group Limited

11 October 2021

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 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 concerns the landlord’s decision regarding the closure of the guest room in the resident’s building.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is a single occupancy flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties, designated for independent living.
4. As per the information provided to this Service, the guest room in question in the resident’s building was re-opened in 2019.

Summary of events

5. The landlord sent a letter to the occupiers of the resident’s building on 7 December 2020 to inform them of its decision to close the guest room located in the building permanently on 16 December 2020, about which they were invited to contact it with any questions before 14 December 2020.
6. The landlord then visited the premises on 16 December 2020, met with the resident and one other occupier of the building, and discussed the following:
   1. It could not allow residents “to run the guest room” and it did “not have the capacity to run” this, which was why this “would need to close”.
   2. It reassured the resident that its decision was not based on concerns relating to money management.
   3. It advised that the guest room “should [not] have been approved in the first place” and that allowing residents to run this was a “conflict of interest”.
7. On 18 December 2020, the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord to request further clarification on its decision to close the guest room in her building. Furthermore, the MP noted that the guest room had been furnished by the building’s residents, no running costs were incurred by the landlord due to residents volunteering to run the facility, and that residents were “attracted” by this facility because this could be used by their relatives when visiting.
8. The landlord replied to the MP’s above correspondence on 22 December 2020 to advise that:
   1. The guest room was incorrectly reintroduced at the resident’s building “without correct authorisation” or “consideration of the potential implications.”
   2. Its decision to close the room was made “in order to maintain compliance with health and safety and insurance requirements”.
   3. It would return any items belonging to the building’s residents.
9. On 4 January 2021, the landlord received and logged a stage one complaint, in respect of the above guest room closure, on behalf of the resident and other occupiers of her building, further to its above meeting with them on 16 December 2020 and their subsequent complaint about this to it of 28 December 2020. They complained that it had previously reinstated the guest room over several months via its former staff member, whose lack of authorisation to do so revealed its lack of supervision and did not invalidate the room.
10. The resident and the other occupiers explained that they disputed that the landlord had previously consulted them about the guest room’s closure and its position that the room was detrimental, that it could not deliver this facility, that volunteers could not contribute to managing the room, and that it was necessary to put this to alternative use. They added that they had willingly furnished the guest room, that corona virus restrictions did not justify the room’s closure as health and safety guidelines were being followed, that there had previously been no objection to the removal of the charge for hiring the guest room, and that all of the costs for the room including insurance were covered by their rent and service charges.
11. On 5 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident, who advised that she did not agree with its decision regarding the closure of her building’s guest room because it was stated in her “contract” that the guest room could be used, along with the communal area and the laundry room there.
12. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 18 January 2021, comprised of the following:
    1. The guest room in her building was initially closed in 2015, as this was not used frequently.
    2. The room was then erroneously re-opened in 2019 by one of its staff members.
    3. It could not provide the staff necessary to manage a guest room, and, at the same time, it could not allow for the building’s residents to voluntarily manage the guest room due to “a conflict of interest, legislation, insurance[,] and health and safety purposes”.
13. The resident and other occupiers of her building wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2021 to request for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure, and to further query its decision, along with the grounds that this was made on. It addressed her queries in a letter dated 28 January 2021.
14. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2021 in respect of the following:
    1. It was yet to provide a “written policy on guest rooms”.
    2. The difference between the building that she resided in and other properties that still offered guest rooms as a facility.
    3. Multiple residents had not received its above letter of 7 December 2020, regarding the closure of the guest room in her building, meaning that they were not properly notified of this decision.
    4. The difference between residents being allowed to volunteer “for fire alarm duties” and residents being allowed to manage the guest room.
    5. The building’s residents being “happy to receive” any training required that would allow them to manage the guest room.
    6. The cleaner responsible for the communal areas having been cleaning the guest room as well.
    7. It not following its “written procedure” regarding the removal of a service.
15. On 24 February 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the residents of the building in question to advise that it would proceed with the closure of the guest room there, and therefore the residents who had “donated items to the room” were to contact it to arrange a suitable time to collect these. It added that any funds remaining from the guest room would be invested in the building’s communal areas.
16. The resident chased the landlord for a final stage complaint response on 22 March and 1 April 2021. It replied to her on 6 April 2021 to query whether she wished to provide further information prior to it reviewing her complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure. This was followed by further correspondence between the resident and landlord on 8, 21 and 22 April 2021, regarding the above.
17. The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021, in which it advised that its decision regarding the closure of the guest room remained the same. Furthermore, it explained that it did not hold a written policy concerning guest rooms, however it was “unable to agree to the reopening of the facility on the basis that [it did] not offer this service at any of [its] other schemes”. The landlord acknowledged that residents were prepared to volunteer to run the guest room, but it stated that there were “elements to this, such as training, support, health and safety and insurance that in our view prevent this from being possible.”
18. The resident’s local MP referred the complaint to this Service on 2 June 2021, acting in the capacity of her designated person, and she contacted us via telephone on 30 June 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to close the guest room in her building. She explained that it had previously reinstated the room at residents’ request, which they had successfully managed as volunteers until this had been suspended due to corona virus restrictions, with it subsequently unexpectedly telling them that the room was to be closed immediately with no consultation and contrary to their “contracts”.
19. The resident added that the guest room did not cost the landlord anything to operate, that this had been furnished by residents, that the room’s occupants had washed the bedding. She also stated that it wanted residents to volunteer to be fire marshals with an associated health and safety risk, but that it would not let them volunteer to operate the guest room because of health and safety, as well as that there were residents who needed to use the room for wider family to provide support to them.
20. The resident additionally cited the requirements from her tenancy agreement for the landlord to remove the service that were provided to her by it under the agreement, which included communal facilities. This obliged it to do so by either her written agreement with it or its prior written of notification of this to her, followed by a reasonable period for her to make written representations to it about this, its consideration of such representations, and its at least four weeks’ notice of variation of the services to her.

Assessment and findings

21. As per the information provided to this Service, it is noted that the resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat. However, the guest room that her complaint focuses on is not one that she occupies or that is located within her flat. Having reviewed the policies and procedures provided to us by it, along with her above tenancy agreement, it has been found that there are no regulations or obligations set out concerning the administration of guest rooms, which it also acknowledged in its final stage complaint response to her of 14 May 2021.
22. The landlord wrote to the residents of the building on 7 December 2020 to advise that it would close the guest room located there on 16 December 2020, which at the time was managed by them on a volunteer basis, and accorded with above the requirement from the resident’s tenancy agreement for it to provide prior written notification of this. As it also invited residents to contact it about this before 14 December 2020, it additionally complied with the requirement to enable them to make written representations about this to it. Although it is of concern that the landlord was obliged to give them a reasonable period to do so and it only provided them with one week to contact it, the resident’s tenancy agreement did not specify that this should be for a longer period of time.
23. The landlord then visited the resident’s building on 16 December 2020, and it discussed the guest room closure with her and another occupier there. This was reasonable of it to do because it engaged with her, acknowledged that this facility should not have been reopened, following the room’s previous closure in 2015, and it explained the reasons behind its decision to close this again. The landlord’s actions additionally suggested that it was further acting in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement’s requirement for it to enable her to make written representations to it about this, and to consider such representations.
24. Furthermore, following the resident’s written representation to the landlord about its closure of her building’s guest room in her stage one complaint to it of 4 January 2021, it proceeded to discuss the matter, both internally and with her on numerous occasions up until its final stage complaint response of 14 May 2021. This therefore demonstrated that she was able to make written representations to it about the closure of the guest room, and that it considered these, in accordance with its obligation to do so under her tenancy agreement.
25. This Service appreciates the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to proceed with the closure of the guest room facility in her building, however it was permitted to do so because her tenancy agreement enabled it to remove communal facilities, such as this, that it provided to her. Moreover, the space concerned was not subject to a separate policy, procedure, agreement or contract governing the provision or use of the room, nor was this specifically mentioned in her tenancy agreement or part of her flat. Therefore, the space that was used as a guest room was for the landlord to use as it saw fit.
26. To conclude, there was no failure by the landlord in its decision regarding the closure of the guest room located in the resident’s building because it provided her with reasonable notice and an explanation for its decision to close the room, as well as considering her written representations about this. This complied with her tenancy agreement, and the space in question was not subject to any separate policies, procedures or agreements contracts between it and the residents of the building, being a facility that it had stopped offering across its schemes.
27. It is nevertheless concerning that, as well as originally only giving the resident one week to provide written representations about the closure of her building’s guest room, there is no evidence that it also provided her with the at least four weeks’ notice of variation of this service required by her tenancy agreement. As outlined above, there is also no evidence that this omission on its part caused her any detriment, but it has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of the variation of services provided under its tenancy agreements. This is in order to seek to prevent such omissions from occurring again in the future.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision regarding the closure of the guest room located in the resident’s building.

Reasons

29. The space used as a guest room in the resident’s building was not subject to any policies, procedures or separate agreements or contracts between the landlord and its residents. Therefore, it was permitted by her tenancy agreement to decide how to use and to withdraw this service, about which it notified her in advance and enabled her to make written representations for that it considered, in line with the agreement.

Recommendation

30. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of the variation of services provided under its tenancy agreements in order to seek to prevent any omissions of its obligations in respect of these from occurring again in the future.
31. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
32. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.