LiveWest Homes Limited (202010159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010159

LiveWest Homes Limited

12 April 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 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

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her request to install a wood burning stove at her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a long-standing tenant of the landlord and since 2017 has lived with her partner and two children in a three bedroom semi detached property owned and managed by the landlord.
In 2018 the resident contacted the landlord’s customer service centre about the possibility of installing a woodburning stove. On 10 September 2018 it sent her a tenant alteration request form with standard covering letter, which she completed and returned on 15 May 2019, giving an expected installation date of 30 June 2019. During this time the resident had paid for some preliminary work for the installation of the stove. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the resident did not discuss the issue with its housing officer at the time and it was therefore unable to advise or let the resident know early on that it was unlikely her request would be approved.
On 11 June 2019 the landlord notified the resident her request to install the stove was refused because it would not allow an open flue appliance in a property with full gas central heating.
On 17 June 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord asking that it review its decision, explaining she had already paid for preliminary work necessary for the completion of the alteration form and that the wood burner would reduce heating costs. She said that in telephone conversations she had had with the landlord regarding the sequence of events: ‘it was made clear to us that permission would not automatically be granted but neither would it be categorically denied.’ She said that the detailed nature of the alteration form also made it appear that: ‘a genuinely well-reasoned application seem unlikely to be unreasonably withheld.’ She stated that the preliminary works complied with the landlord’s requirements and building regulations.
On 12 August 2019 the resident chased the landlord for a response. The landlord said it would deal with her ‘appeal’ against its decision under its complaints procedure. The resident explained that the reason she had gone ahead with works was because the alteration form had been misleading
On 19 August 2019 the landlord instructed a surveyor to inspect the preliminary work to assure itself it was safe. In an update to the resident about the forthcoming survey it said only that it was seeking further information about the matter and that it hoped its having requested the survey would go some way to assuring her it took her complaint seriously.
On 21 August 2019 the surveyor reported back that the works undertaken were safety compliant. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2019 to say it had received the surveyor’s report and although it ‘gather(ed) there was some misunderstanding on the works carried out and permissions’ it hoped it would soon be able to resolve the complaint.
Through September 2019 the resident chased the landlord for an update. She said the alteration form had been misleading in that it was focused on adherence to building regulations and that she was not told that having gas central heating would result in a refusal. On 1 October 2019 the landlord provided its Stage 1 response. In summary, the landlord:
1. apologised for its delayed response and offered £50 compensation.
2. agreed its alterations cover letter was misleading as it did not clearly explain why it would refuse installation, referring only to its technical requirements if permission was granted.
3. acknowledged it ought to make clear to residents that any works completed prior to permission would be at their own risk.
4. offered the resident a further £100 compensation in recognition of its misleading correspondence.
5. said its decision to not permit installation of the wood burner accorded with its policy to not permit installation for health and safety reasons when a property already has a sufficient heating source, ie gas central heating in her case.
On 8 October 2019 the resident declined the compensation and requested a copy of the policy to which the landlord had referred. On 11 October 2019 the landlord provided its Solid Fuel Safety Policy and Operational Procedures [dated 1 October 2019]. The landlord explained it did not have a written policy at the time of her application but that following the Grenfell tragedy and residents’ safety concerns it had decided to restrict the installation of solid fuel burning appliances.
On 14 October 2019 the resident submitted her Stage 2 request for a review. In summary, she said that she had been misled by the landlord both verbally and in written documentation. In particular, she said:
1. the landlord’s alteration form and cover letter was misleading in giving every indication of a positive outcome. No indication was given of there being a blanket ban on wood burner installation.
2. costly preliminary works of @ £1000 were necessary in order to provide the information sought in the form.
3. the landlord’s surveyor had indicated during his inspection that although not his decision, a positive outcome was still possible.
4. the landlord’s initial explanation for its refusal was unreasonable, gave insufficient consideration to efficiency savings, gave doubtful safety concerns and gave the existence of gas central heating as the reason, when this had not been indicated previously.
5. the appeal decision should have taken the landlord 14 days but had taken 3.5 months.
On 29 October 2019 the landlord provided its Stage 2 response. It said it maintained its decision to refuse permission primarily on the grounds of fire safety. It said that since the resident had originally requested the consent form it had decided to remove solid fuel appliances from its properties and not to grant consent if there was an alternative primary heating source, ie gas or electric.
It accepted its previous letters should have been clearer about the need for consent prior to any works and recognised the resident had gone to some expense for the preliminary works. To resolve the complaint the landlord offered to:
1. reinstate the existing fire surround.
2. provide £500 for the resident to source an electric fire which it would install.
3. address the resident’s wish to improve the thermal efficiency of the property by assessing the property and advising.
In response, the resident asked instead if the landlord would allow the installation of a gas, rather than electric fire. But the landlord declined on the grounds that it was replacing gas fires in its properties for electric on safety and maintenance grounds. If offered instead to install an additional radiator rather than electric fire, which the resident declined.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is entitled to revise existing policies and formulate new ones on issues and this will have an impact on the decisions it makes. There were circumstances in which the landlord used to permit the installation of woodburning stoves in its properties and now it does not. It says it has made that policy decision on safety grounds and, while the resident does not agree with that decision or the reasons for it, the Ombudsman recognises it is a position the landlord is entitled to take. It is not therefore for the Ombudsman to require the landlord to revise its decision.
But in coming to the Ombudsman the resident is not only unhappy with the landlord’s decision, but also the process by which it was made. She says that in her communication with the landlord she was misled as to the likelihood of the installation being permitted and that this and the landlord’s alteration request form led her to pay for preliminary work for which she is now out of pocket.
While the resident has referred to telephone contact with the landlord about the necessary sequence of events, neither party has provided evidence of a telephone conversation in which permission was discussed prior to the request being submitted. For its part, the landlord has said its housing officer was not consulted about the matter. [The Ombudsman notes her contact details were provided on the alteration request cover letter.] And the resident herself has said she was not given a categorical assurance that permission would be granted, only that it would not be unreasonably withheld. That being the case, there is no evidence that the resident was orally misled by the landlord as to the likelihood of her being granted permission prior to her submitting her request.
The resident has pointed in particular, however, to the written information that the landlord provided as the primary reason she believed permission would be granted. The Ombudsman has reviewed the information available to the resident at the time of her request and considered whether this could reasonably be considered to have misled her as to the likelihood of permission being granted.
As the landlord’s policies at the time did not prohibit the installation of wood burners, the information available to the resident took the form of her tenancy agreement and the landlord’s alteration request form and cover letter. The resident’s tenancy agreement states at paragraph D4 ‘Improvements and alterations: You may make improvements and alterations to your home as long as you first get our permission in writing…..We will not refuse permission without good reason…….If you make alterations without our agreement, we may require you to remove them and make good any damage or, if you do not, we may do this ourselves.’ This therefore makes clear the need to seek prior approval for an alteration such as installation of a wood burner.
To seek prior approval the resident contacted the landlord and it sent her the appropriate alteration form. This form and standard covering letter refer specifically to wood burning appliances, describes the need for installations to comply with safety and building regulations, outlines the landlord’s post-installation requirements and what action the landlord might take if regulations are found not to have been complied with. The Ombudsman notes no reference is made in either the form or cover letter as to why permission might not be granted in advance of installation.
In the Ombudsman’s view, as these documents focused on the work necessary for the safe installation of a wood burner and the action taken if the resident failed to comply with regulations, it is understandable that the resident interpreted them to mean permission would be granted provided she complied with the regulations. Furthermore, as the form itself required detailed information on the proposed installation, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that the resident instruct a registered installer to assess the necessary installation requirements so that she could complete the form. This involved her incurring some expense in advance of submitting her request.
It is not known from what date the landlord decided to decline applications for installation of wood burning stoves. Clearly, it had decided to do so by June 2019, when it refused the resident’s request. Furthermore, by 1 October 2019 in its newly published Solid Fuel Safety Policy and Operational Procedures, it explicitly states (at paragraph 12.4) that installation of a solid fuel appliance would not be permitted on safety grounds where there was already an existing primary heat source. That position was then later embedded in the landlord’s Alterations and Improvements Policy [effective from December 2020].
As already explained, the landlord was entitled to make that policy decision and there is no suggestion in the evidence provided that the decision it made in the resident’s case in June 2019 was contrary to that position. Nevertheless, in revising its approach to the issue of wood burning stoves, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have given consideration to some form of transitionary arrangement for those residents who had already by that stage embarked on the process of seeking permission, or at least for it have taken steps to alert residents to the policy change. [The Ombudsman notes the alteration cover letter allocated the resident a reference number and so it would be reasonable to assume the landlord had a record of pending requests.]
In the Ombudsman’s view, such action was made all the more necessary in light of the potential for the process to carry costs for the resident (in arranging a pre-installation survey), and the time necessary to complete the form in light of the detailed installation information requested. But the landlord has provided no evidence that it made residents aware either via its website or intranet, or directly with the residents concerned of the policy change. Had it done so it would have helped avoid any unnecessary expense and disappointment for the resident. While the resident could have contacted the housing officer, as the landlord has suggested, the Ombudsman does not see any indication that the need for her to do so was apparent because as far as she was concerned the landlord had provided her with all necessary information.
With respect to the financial impact on the resident, she has said the preliminary works cost her approximately £1000. [The Ombudsman has not seen the evidence of the cost of this.] The landlord has offered her £500 for the cost of an alternative electric fire, in recognition of the fact that it ought to have been clearer about the need for consent prior to any works being undertaken. Nevertheless, by the resident’s account this falls short of the cost of the feasibility works undertaken by the resident prior to submitting her request, as a result of the misleading information she had been given. The Ombudsman considers that it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to reimburse the resident the cost of the feasibility works undertaken in the legitimate expectation that she would be permitted to install a wood burner that complied with regulations. Through doing so the landlord would effectively restore the resident to the position she would have been in, financially, were it not for the acknowledged failings in its communication.
The cost of the preliminary work aside, the resident has described the considerable stress and inconvenience she has been caused at having had her expectations raised that she would be granted permission for something that, unbeknownst to her, by the time of her request was no longer possible. While the decision itself caused the resident understandable upset, the landlord then failed to manage the resident’s expectations during the course of the review of its decision. It failed to make clear the purpose of the surveyor’s inspection both before and after his visit. In assuring the resident the inspection showed it was taking her complaint seriously and that it hoped to be able to shortly resolve her complaint, the landlord allowed the resident to harbour an expectation that, despite the policy decision, her request might still be permitted. And the four months it took to review its decision – during which time the resident had to repeatedly chase a response – effectively prolonged that expectation. [The landlord’s complaints procedure aims to provide its Stage 1 response within 5 working days.] The landlord has offered £100 compensation for its misleading correspondence, and £50 for its delays, but the Ombudsman considers these offers failed to provide tangible recognition of the extent of resident’s disappointment which resulted from the landlord’s misleading communication and delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to install a wood burning stove at her property.

Reasons

The landlord was entitled to refuse the resident’s request for permission to install a wood burning stove at her property. But its request form and covering letter gave rise to a reasonable expectation that permission would be granted, as a result of which the resident incurred expenses which have yet to be fully redressed. Following its decision to refuse permission, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations of a possible reversal of its decision and this, together with its delay, caused the resident disappointment, inconvenience and stress that has yet to be fully recognised by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and offer to either reimburse the cost of the feasibility works undertaken for the purpose of her installation request (on provision of the necessary evidence) or to renew its offer to pay £500 towards the cost of an electric fireplace and to install this free of charge and reimburse any remainder of the cost of the feasibility works which is in excess of this £500.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation, in place of the £150 previously offered, in recognition of the stress and disappointment she suffered as a result of the landlord’s acknowledged service failures.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord review the sources of information it currently makes available to residents to ensure that its prohibition on the installation of wood burning stoves is made clear.