The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202214183)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214183

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

21 September 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 repairs and adaptations to the outhouse shed and toilet.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 27 January 2020. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. It has an outhouse that is divided into a shed and a toilet (without a washbasin). The outhouse is accessed through a lean to that is adjacent to the property. The property’s main bathroom is upstairs and has a toilet and washbasin. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), back pain, migraines, anxiety, sensory processing disorder and a heart condition. Her daughter is disabled with specialist support needs. The landlord has been aware of the resident and her daughter’s vulnerabilities since 2019.

The tenancy agreement

  1. The tenancy says that the resident can make improvements to the property after gaining the landlord’s written consent. It also says it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, outside walls, outside doors and integral garages and stores. It repairs internal walls, and floors (excluding floor coverings).


Legislation

  1. The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, sets out what is a habitable space in a property. Bath or toilet facilities, service rooms and corridors are not considered as habitable spaces.
  2. The Decent Homes Standard (2002), says that a property would fail to meet the standard if its main toilet is external, or if a toilet without a washbasin opens onto a kitchen.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it carries out improvements to properties on a pre-programmed basis. It aims to attend repairs for a leaking roof within 7 days.
  2. Its adaptations policy follows the College of Occupational Therapist (COOT) guidelines when deciding whether a request is a minor or major adaptation. A minor adaptation is defined as needing little or no technical involvement. A major adaptation is more technically complex. The landlord will liaise with the local authority where a major adaptation is required to secure funding under a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). Where DFG’s are refused, it may use its own discretion and budget to install adaptations.
  3. COOT guidelines say that an occupational therapist must be involved in any adaptation request to a landlord where the adaptation is for the assistance of a child.
  4. The landlord’s complaints procedure has 2 stages. It answers stage 1 complaints within 10 days and stage 2 complaints within 20 days. If it is unable to meet those timeframes, it will agree an extension with the resident.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident asked for an additional complaint about repairs to her broken floorboards to be added to this investigation. This service is unable to bring new matters into this investigation and the resident needs to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure before this service can investigate this as a new complaint.
  2. The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord about the roofing contractor which has not been dealt with as part of this case.

Summary of events

  1. Between 11 May 2021 and 29 October 2021, the resident asked for the landlord to make improvements and repairs to the outhouse. She said:
    1. There was mould in the outhouse shed since the roof had leaked. This was where she stored her freezer and tumble dryer as there was no room in the main property.
    2. The landlord’s former surveyor (who no longer worked for it), had agreed to alterations to the outhouse including a vent in the shed. Also boarding out, laying flooring and changing the window to a frosted one in the outhouse toilet.
    3. She reported leaks in the outhouse shed and toilet. She said due to the leaks, she could not lay the flooring she had purchased for the toilet. The flooring was to enable her disabled daughter to use the outhouse toilet.
    4. She asked the landlord to change the shed window to one that opened to help with the mould issue. She asked the landlord to remove some kitchen cupboards to make room for the tumble dryer and freezer in her kitchen.
  2. During this time the landlord inspected the outhouse. It told the resident that the outhouse was not designed to be completely waterproof. It said the building was concrete so it could not install a vent as the resident had suggested. It advised her to use a dehumidifier and said that the outhouse was for storage and not a living space.
  3. On 5 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. It would not alter the outhouse as it was not a part of the resident’s living space or an essential part of the property.
    2. The build of the outhouse meant it could not be brought up to the standard the resident wanted.
    3. It was sorry it could not carry out the resident’s requests for works, but suggested she apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to make the changes she required. If she was interested in doing this, she could contact the landlord for more information.
  4. The resident continued to ask the landlord for the improvements to the outhouse. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2021. It said:
    1. It upheld its stage 1 decision. It said it appreciated the reasons that the resident wanted the repairs to the outhouse, but that she should apply for a DFG. It could help her through the DFG process if she wanted to investigate this option.
    2. It apologised for any promises its previous surveyor may have made which “weren’t within his remit.” It said its previous surveyor should have managed the resident’s expectations and by not doing so frustration had been caused for her.
  5. The resident asked for further clarification on the reasons for not upholding her complaint. It reissued its stage 2 response with further detail on 14 January 2022. It said:
    1. That as the outhouse was a “single skinned prefabricated Cornish outbuilding” it would continue to show signs of condensation and water ingress. It would not change the structure of the outhouse to stop this from happening. This was because the outhouse was not a part of the main property and was not a living space.
    2. The water on the resident’s chest freezer could be condensation. If the resident thought it was due to a roof leak, she could call its repairs line. If she believed her outhouse toilet was leaking, she should also report this to its repairs line.
    3. It had inspected the outhouse shed and the window did not need to be replaced for an opening unit. It had changed the outhouse toilet window to one with frosted glass.
    4. It would change the sockets in the outhouse to ones with a higher IP rating which would make them waterproof.
    5. It would not carry out any further improvement requests to the outhouse building.
    6. The resident had raised concerns that there was no space in her main property for her chest freezer and tumble dryer. It did not consider these items to be a “minimum requirement” and suggested the resident look to stack her washer and tumble dryer on top of each other or purchase a washer/dryer. It did not explain what a “minimum requirement” was.

After the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure

  1. Between 2 February 2022 and 13 September 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord about the improvements she wanted it to make in the outhouse. She wanted the improvements because:
    1. Her daughter had difficulty using the kitchen sink because of her feeding tube. Having a sink in the outhouse toilet would be easier for her daughter.
    2. The resident had applied for a DFG for a sink in the outhouse toilet but had been refused.
    3. She wanted to be able to store her daughter’s medical equipment in the outhouse shed, but was unable to because of the mould, condensation, and water ingress.
    4. The lean to roof had split due to a previous poor repair.
    5. Her doctor contacted the landlord asking it to consider making adaptations for the resident and her daughter.
  2. The landlord reinvestigated the resident’s concerns and a surveyor inspected the outhouse. It liaised with the local authority on her behalf about a DFG. It completed a review of the resident’s repairs and maintenance correspondence for the past 2 years. It raised a repair to seal the lean to roof, agreed that the windows in the outhouse would be replaced, and removed a kitchen cupboard so the resident could fit her dryer.
  3. It reconfirmed its position that the outhouse was functioning as it should be and was not a space intended for living. If the resident wanted adaptations to the outhouse, she would need to contact an occupational therapist.
  4. The resident raised her complaint with this service on 3 October 2022. Her reasons were:
    1. The landlord’s former surveyor had agreed to make adaptations to the outhouse, but the landlord had now refused.
    2. The local authority would not accept a DFG for the adaptations and said it was the landlord’s responsibility.
    3. She could not lay flooring in the outhouse toilet due to water ingress and weeds. This was not hygienic for her disabled daughter who easily contracted infections.
    4. The outhouse shed was susceptible to black mould.
    5. She was still awaiting new windows for the outhouse.
    6. The outhouse lean to was not waterproof. Water then leaked under the doors and into the outhouse.

Assessment and findings

  1. The property’s main bathroom is located upstairs and has a toilet and appropriate access to a washbasin. The outhouse toilet is in addition to the main bathroom and does not open onto a kitchen. Therefore, the property meets the Decent Homes Standard and as such the landlord is not obligated to fit a washbasin in the outhouse.
  2. The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, says that toilets and bathrooms are not habitable spaces. This supports the landlord’s conclusion that as the outhouse is not a liveable space, it is not required to adapt it to be one.
  3. The landlord’s policy on adaptations says that it will liaise with an occupational therapist (OT) when adaptations are requested, and that DFG is required for major adaptations. It did so in this case via the local authority. The landlord cannot be held accountable for the local authority’s decision not to grant DFG for the conversion of the outhouse into a storage area for medical equipment, or to install a sink.
  4. The landlord showed willingness to meet some of the resident’s requests which is evidenced by the repairs it carried out on the outhouse. It went beyond its obligations by removing a kitchen cupboard to allow space for the resident’s dryer which she said was essential for her daughter’s needs. It also replaced the toilet window to frosted glass and agreed to replace the outhouse shed window later.
  5. The resident maintains that a former surveyor agreed to her adaptation requests for the outhouse but has not provided evidence to show this. The landlord’s evidence does not show that its previous surveyor agreed to the resident’s requests.
  6. The landlord provided further detail on its decision when it reissued its stage 2 response at the resident’s request. The landlord did not define what a “minimum requirement” was which lacked clarity. It reviewed its position after the end of its complaint procedure and reviewed its repairs records and responses to the resident over a period of 2 years. It was not obligated to look at the complaint again once it had issued its stage 2 response. This shows that it reasonably considered the resident’s requests in line with hers and her daughter’s circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs and adaptations to the outhouse shed and toilet.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted within its policies and procedures and does not have an obligation to adapt the outhouse. This service sympathises with the resident’s position in that she wants to make things easier for the management of her child’s disability. However, an OT is required to make decisions for children’s adaptations and not the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. If the outhouse shed window has not been replaced, the landlord could give the resident timeframes for when this will be done.
  2. It would be good practice for the landlord to consider referring the resident to disability charities if it has not already done so.