Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202126104)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126104

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s shed.
This Service has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a detached property, under a lease with the landlord.
In July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting an in-person visit and investigation into whether their neighbour’s shed was legal and within regulations. The resident had concerns about the gap between the shed and their fence/wall being too small. The landlord subsequently requested that the neighbour complete its internal home improvement application. Following this, the landlord set out conditions for the work to be undertaken in a letter to the neighbour. In August 2020, the landlord attended the neighbour’s property to assess the shed and later confirmed approval had been given. The landlord emailed the resident with this information and said the stated gap size was not a planning requirement.
Following further correspondence between the landlord and the resident regarding the shed, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s decision in November 2020. In their complaint, the resident explained the events leading up to the construction of the shed. They also set out their concerns about the shed. These were:
1. The impact on their privacy when in their own garden.
2. Being the legal owner of that part of the garden fence and having access to it blocked by the shed, should it need repairing.
3. The appearance of their home being that of a semi-detached property, when it is a detached property, due to the close proximity of the shed.
4. Airflow, sunlight and the resident’s view being obstructed.
5. The impact the shed has on their property’s value.

To resolve the issue, the resident requested the landlord to investigate and arrange for the shed to be removed.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in December 2020 and issued its stage one response in January 2021. In the response, the landlord stated there should be a minimum gap of 60cm between the shed and fence/wall. It also confirmed that it would write to the neighbour to request the shed is moved to within guidelines, allowing 28 days for compliance. The neighbour returned to the landlord with approval of the shed from the local council planning department in March 2021.
In November 2021 the resident advised the landlord that their issue remained outstanding. The landlord subsequently provided its stage two response in December 2021. In the response, it explained that because the shed was a “temporary structure” it was not required to adhere to the minimum distance of 600mm from the boundary. However, the landlord acknowledged it should not have allowed construction, given the close proximity to the fence/wall. This was due to a clause in the lease which requires access to the premises for the purpose of repairing. The neighbour’s shed prevented the resident from accessing that part of the fence/wall, which the landlord acknowledged. To resolve the issue, the landlord offered to maintain responsibility for any required repairs to the fence/wall and made an offer of £250 compensation for the length of time the issue remained unresolved.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome and requested the involvement of this Service. As a resolution, the resident requested a long term, proper and professional solution and, as set out in their complaint to the landlord, the shed to be removed/returned to the original state.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s shed

The resident first raised concerns about the construction of a shed in their neighbours property in a letter to the landlord, on 21 July 2020. The resident raised questions about the legality of the structure and also highlighted concerns about:
1. Access to fence panels adjacent to the shed.
2. The impact on the resident’s privacy.
3. Obstruction to airflow, sunlight and the resident’s view.
When receiving a report of construction impacting a resident’s property, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to complete an investigation into the concerns within a reasonable timescale.
The resident requested an update from the landlord by email on 23 July 2020. The landlord informed them that their concerns had been passed to a surveyor to investigate. It also requested the neighbour to stop any progress to the construction until a home improvement request was completed.
When considering whether to approve alterations or improvements to a property, the landlord’s policy requires residents to complete an application form. This form includes details of any proposed work, copies of any required planning permission or building regulation approval and, if applicable, estimated quotes from different contractors. The landlord must also consider the tenancy agreement between it and the resident, also taking into account any impact this may have on neighbouring residents.
The landlord followed the relevant policy by requesting the resident’s neighbour to complete an application form. It also made the appropriate decision to request any progress to the construction be stopped. However, the landlord did not consider the agreed terms of the lease at this stage. Had it done so, it is likely it would have identified the clause which states:

“Permit Entry – At all reasonable times during the term on notice to permit the landlord and the lessees of other adjoining or neighbouring premises with workmen and others to enter the premises for the purpose of repairing any adjoining or neighbouring premises and for the purpose of repairing, maintaining and replacing all service media or other conveniences belonging to or serving the same, the party so entering making good any damage caused to the premises.”

This clause suggests the distance between the shed and the resident’s fence/wall was not appropriate. Given this information, the landlord should not have allowed the neighbour to build the shed. However, its failure to identify the clause, following the initial concerns raised by the resident, meant construction continued.
The resident requested further information from the landlord about ownership of the impacted fence panel on 24 July 2020 and again on 26 July 2020. The resident also raised concerns about their property now appearing to be semi-detached, due to the close proximity of the shed, and the impact this issue may have on the value of their property. The landlord acknowledged this request on 27 July 2020, advising the resident the request had been passed to the appropriate department to respond.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord provided an appropriate response to the request for information about ownership of the impacted fence, doing so within a reasonable time.
The landlord has provided this Service with email correspondence between it and the neighbour, regarding approval of the shed. In an email dated 31 July 2020, the landlord refers to a permission letter and requests “once the shed has been completed” to provide images so an approval letter can be issued without further inspection. This suggests the landlord allowed the neighbour to proceed with construction of the shed, which should have been communicated to the resident at the time.
In an email from the landlord to the resident, dated 4 August 2020, it stated that correspondence had been sent to the neighbour advising them to cease construction until the relevant paperwork had been completed. This did not accurately reflect previous correspondence between the landlord and neighbour. The resident responded to this email to explain construction had continued, which was acknowledged by the landlord and passed to another department.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it will be arranging a visit to the neighbour’s property. The email set out the purpose of the visit as establishing whether the shed complied with relevant guidance and, if appropriate, request alterations or complete removal. The landlord confirmed it would update the resident following the visit.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 August 2020 to advise an appointment had been made for that week. The landlord also arranged to visit the resident’s property on the same day, to gain access from their property to investigate the position of the shed.
Following the visit that week, the landlord should have contacted the resident to provide an update, as confirmed in the email of 7 August 2020. However, the resident did not hear from the landlord until after they contacted it on 28 August 2020 to request an update. It acknowledged this email on 1 September 2020, explaining a staff absence had impacted response times. The landlord should have had a process in place to deal with staff absences, to make sure any agreed obligations – such as the update to the resident – could be met without any unnecessary delay.
The landlord provided a full response to the resident on 14 September 2020. The response explained the landlord was satisfied with the construction and size of the shed. The response also clarified that the previously mentioned minimum gap size was not a planning requirement and that the garden did not offer an alternative placement for the shed. Whilst the timeliness of it was not in line with what the landlord agreed on 7 August 2020, this Service found the response to be clear and appropriate.
Following a request from the resident, the landlord provided information about guidance relating to the neighbour’s construction on 18 September 2020. It confirmed the gap requirement of 60cm applied to extensions and, whilst it attempts to adhere to the standard guidance, the landlord did not require it for the construction.
The resident responded to this information on 20 September 2020, raising concerns about the information provided and reiterating previously raised concerns about access to the fence/wall. The landlord should have provided an acknowledgement or response to the resident at this time. However, having not received a reply, the resident chased a response from the landlord on 20 October 2020.
The landlord did not respond and the resident made a subsequent complaint on 2 November 2020. The complaint outlined concerns about the shed and the impact it was having on the resident’s property.
The landlord provided a stage one response in January 2021, which agreed with the resident’s concerns about the position of the shed and that it could impact maintenance of the fence/wall. To resolve the issue, the landlord stated it will be giving the neighbour 28 days to relocate the shed with a minimum distance of 60cm from the resident’s property.
The resident’s neighbour later provided the landlord with correspondence from the local council planning department, which stated that given “…dimensions of the summer house, it is not expedient for us to take any action against you [the neighbour] for this.”
If the landlord made the decision at this time to allow the shed to remain, following the instructions in the stage one response, it ought to have informed the resident. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to demonstrate this was done. The evidence provided suggests the next correspondence between the landlord and resident was in September 2021.
In its stage two response, the landlord referred to an email to the resident sent on 24 September 2021. Whilst this Service has not been provided with the email, the stage two response stated that an error relating to the minimum distance from the resident’s boundary was addressed. The landlord confirmed this requirement only applies to permanent structures and, for that reason, the shed remained in position. This information was provided eight months after the stage one response, which the landlord acknowledged and apologised for.
The landlord also made reference to the lease clause which requires entry and/or access for the purposes of repairing, maintaining or replacing. It acknowledged the position of the shed did not allow access to part of the fence/wall and, therefore, admitted it should not have permitted construction of the shed so close to the resident’s property. To resolve the issue, the landlord offered to “accept maintenance responsibilities for that area of the wall and fence, whilst the shed remains located there.” It also offered £250 compensation “due to the amount of time the complaint remained unresolved.”
If the landlord identified the lease clause regarding entry and/or access to the fence/wall when the issue was first raised, the resident’s concerns could have been addressed sooner. As the resident made their concerns about the shed clear in July 2020, it was reasonable for them to have expected the landlord to conduct a thorough investigation at that point. Had it done so, it would have identified the lease clause and provided a resolution or an explanation for its decision to allow the construction.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances when compensation may be considered. For service delivery failure, the policy states compensation will be considered where “a customer [the resident] has suffered loss or inconvenience due to the group’s [landlord’s] failure to deliver services”.
In acknowledging the distress caused to the resident and the amount of time the issue remained unresolved, the landlord accepted they had suffered inconvenience worthy of compensation. It then had to consider an amount which was fair and reasonable, given the issue had remained unresolved for around 17 months.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s error of not identifying the lease clause sooner meant service standards for actions and/or responses were not met, but the failure had no significant impact on the resident. Although a resolution could have been reached sooner, it may not have changed the landlord’s decision to allow the shed to remain.
The landlord’s offer to take responsibility for any potential maintenance of the fence and wall affected by the shed demonstrated its willingness to resolve the resident’s concerns. The lease clause made it clear that access should be readily available, which the landlord acknowledged it was not. By offering to take ownership of any required repairs, the landlord would take on any financial implications potential repairs would incur. The resident would also not have to worry about access to that area of the fence or wall, as this would be the ongoing responsibility of the landlord.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer of compensation was proportionate to the impact on the resident and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances. It also acknowledged the landlord’s willingness to accept responsibility for the affected fence and wall as appropriate.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy states that it will “contact a customer within a maximum of two working days to discuss the issue, explain how they [the landlord] can help and set expectations as to how long it is likely to take them [the landlord] to deal with the matter.”
The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 3 November 2020. The landlord had until 5 November 2020 to contact the resident, in line with its own complaints policy. However, the landlord did not send an acknowledgement until 26 working days later, on 9 December 2020. It took an additional 17 working days to issue a stage one complaint response.
The complaint handling code sets out the maximum timescales for handling stage one complaints as:
1. Five working days to log and acknowledge a complaint.
2. 10 working days to issue a stage one decision, with any delays to be communicated and not exceeding an additional 10 working days.
This Service has identified that the landlord met required standards for acknowledging and responding to the stage two complaint in December 2021. However, it did not follow its own complaints policy when handling the resident’s initial complaint at stage one of the process. Whilst the landlord identified its failings in handling the resident’s concerns about the shed, it did not identify the substantial delay in acknowledging and responding to the stage one complaint.
In failing to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within the appropriate time, the landlord missed an opportunity to deal with the issue sooner. This added to the overall time spent on resolving the resident’s concerns, which the landlord identified required compensation to put things right. Therefore, this Service considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation for the complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s shed, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has determined that there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 for the service failure when handling the resident’s associated stage one complaint.
The landlord must provide evidence it has complied with this order within 28 calendar days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the initial offer of £250 made in its stage two response, in recognition of the length of time the resident’s concerns remained unresolved (if not already done so).
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord make a record on its system of the agreement to take responsibility for the maintenance of the impacted fence and wall, as long as the shed is in place. The landlord should also offer the resident separate, formal confirmation of this agreement.
It is recommended the landlord reviews the process for covering any staff absences, to ensure this does not cause unnecessary delays in corresponding with residents.