Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202013157)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013157

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

28 June 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the use and allocation of the sheds on his estate.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. The neighbourhood improvement for communities and estates (NICE) scheme enables residents to apply for funding to carry out improvements in their communities. In respect to this complaint, it was to improve the communal areas, and allow for additional storage sheds for the benefit of its residents.
3. As per the landlord’s NICE policy, applications for funding are considered against criteria including “all those in the neighbourhood will have equal access to the improvement”.
4. Section 2.4 the landlord’s complaints resolution policy states that “if things go wrong, [it] will accept responsibility, put them right, and learn from mistakes, which helps reduce the chance of things going wrong again.”

Background

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one bedroom first floor flat.

Summary of events

6. On 7 August 2020, the landlord emailed the resident in response to enquiries he had made about the availability of the sheds on his estate:
   1. The shed adjacent to block 25 to 32 was not a communal shed, with this having been paid for by a neighbour.
   2. It had emptied and cleaned the brick shed opposite block 2 to 7, and the keys were available to all residents.
   3. The shed adjacent to block 24 was used for storing garden tools, which were used to maintain the gardens in front of the block.
   4. The resident was using the shed at the end of block 15 to 24.
   5. The landlord suggested that the resident use the communal brick shed for storage.
7. On 8 August 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, stating the following:
   1. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32, the resident questioned whether the shed had been purchased by the neighbour. He had been informed that the landlord had paid for the erection of the shed and the paving slabs/ Furthermore, when the shed was cleared a couple of years ago, the items found had suggested it was not for the sole use of one resident.
   2. Only two residents had keys for the shed opposite block 2-7; however, the resident was satisfied that this could now be used by other residents.
   3. The shed adjacent to block 15 to 24 was being used by one resident, and he believed no other resident had access. Although the resident acknowledged the area in front of the block did look “very nice”, “NICE scheme projects should be for the benefit of all residents.”
   4. He had permission to store his gardening equipment in the shed at the end of block 15 to 24, having been a part of the gardening club for the residents of the block.
   5. He summarised his main point being that two sheds were replaced using NICE scheme funding, to the benefit of two households. He suggested making keys for all of the sheds, available to all of the residents.
8. On 9 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him it had treated his correspondence of 8 August 2020 as a complaint. It would provide its response by 23 September 2020, having given some time to the resident following bereavement.
9. On 22 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident:
   1. It confirmed that the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32 was paid for and erected by a neighbouring resident, following consultation with residents in September 2017. It further confirmed that no NICE scheme funds were involved in the project. This shed was therefore not communal.
   2. It confirmed that the brick shed opposite block 2 to 7 was for communal use, with the keys made available to all residents.
   3. The shed adjacent to block 15 to 24 is used for the storage of garden tools It confirmed that the resident could also store his gardening equipment there by arrangement. It further confirmed that the shed was not erected as part of a NICE scheme.
   4. In respect to the shed at the end of block 15 to 24, it recognised that the shed was erected for use of the gardening club, which was no longer active. It therefore agreed that this should be made available to all residents, and asked the resident to provide the key. It also confirmed that the shed was not erected as part of a NICE scheme.
   5. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint in respect to items c and d above. It also confirmed that there had been no NICE scheme works undertaken since 2015.
10. On 21 October 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, he explained that;
    1. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32, the resident had been informed by a neighbour that the landlord had laid the ground slabs for the shed in 2010. He also confirmed that the residents had no recollection of the consultation in 2017 about a shed that was “already in place”. He acknowledged that he had no evidence that NICE funds were used, there was “no doubt that [the landlord’s funds] were used to replace the shed, which was not being offered as a communal facility.
    2. The resident was pleased that the shed opposite block 2 to 7 was now available to all residents, though many residents were not aware of the changes in access to the facility.
    3. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 15 to 24, he felt that it was unworkable to need to arrange access to the shed, as it was reliant upon the landlord’s availability, which was understandably limited due to the corona virus restrictions. He felt that residents could be trusted, and that they should be informed of the availability of the shed for storage.
    4. The resident confirmed that he had removed the padlocks from the shed at the end of block 15 to 24, and suggested that the residents be notified of its availability.
    5. In response to the landlord’s confirmation that no NICE scheme works had been undertaken since 2015, the resident stated that “in 2018, mobility scooter sheds were made available”. He felt that the landlord’s response was inaccurate, and that its decision to use its money “for individual or limited use of resident”, whether through the NICE scheme or other budgets, “could be interpreted as favouritism.”
11. On 9 November 2020, the landlord issued its final-stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
    1. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32, it was unsure of the information the resident had been provided by the other resident’s; it confirmed that the shed had been purchased by the neighbouring resident in 2017. It was satisfied that its stage one complaint response was “accurate.”
    2. It confirmed that it would erect notices confirming that the brick shed opposite block 2 to 7 was available to all residents once the corona virus restrictions allowed it to do so.
    3. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 15 to 24, it confirmed that this was only used for gardening equipment. Contrary to its stage one complaint response, the keys were not held by the landlord, but by two residents, who would make them available to residents. The landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint.
    4. It confirmed that it would erect notices confirming that the shed at the end of block 15 to 24 was available to all residents once the corona virus restrictions allowed it to do so.
    5. In respect to the mobility scooter sheds, the landlord apologised for not providing accurate information to the resident, as it was “neighbourhood improvement funding that was used to provide the mobility scooter storage in October 2018.” The landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint.
    6. The landlord confirmed that the only funds it had used was for the mobility scooter storage. Although it was only of benefit to some residents, it provided much needed storage, of which the resident had also benefitted.
    7. It apologised for its inaccuracies, as detailed above, which it was felt was due to an error and not meant to mislead the resident. It had discussed the matter with its operative to try to prevent a reoccurrence.
12. On 11 May 2021, the landlord wrote to this Service to respond to our request for further information about the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed that, in relation to the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32, it had found that NICE funds were used, and the shed should therefore have been made available for communal use. It also explained that its failure to identify the funding of this shed was due to an administration error; however, it had responded to the resident’s complaints “in good faith”. It confirmed that it would contact the resident, “to apologise and rectify the unintentional error”.

Assessment and findings

13. This investigation is concerned with determining whether the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for the use and allocation of the sheds fairly, and in line with his tenancy agreement and its policies, procedures and other obligations.
14. Following the resident’s concerns over the use and allocation of the communal sheds, the landlord was obliged to review how the sheds were being used, especially as those built with NICE funding required that they be used by all residents.
15. The landlord communicated in its stage one complaint response to the resident that the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32 had not received NICE funding. Therefore, it could not be classed as a communal shed. Despite the resident’s continued concerns over the accuracy of its response, the landlord’s final stage complaints response confirmed that the information it had provided was “accurate.”
16. Following the end of the complaints process, the landlord realised that the information it had given the resident about this shed was wrong. This undermined confidence in the reliability of the landlord ‘s explanations to the resident, and is a significant failing. Nonetheless, the landlord partly remedied the error by acknowledging it. It explained to this Service that it would contact the resident to explain and apologise. This Service has not seen evidence of this letter.
17. In respect to the shed opposite block 2 to 7, and the shed at the end of block 15 to 24, the landlord took the opportunity of its full complaints procedure to arrange for communal access to its residents, and had committed to erecting signs to inform its residents. This was reasonable actions for the landlord to take, and in line with its policy as detailed in paragraph 4 above.
18. In respect to the shed adjacent to block 25 to 32, communal access was given. Although it is noted that the keys were not stored in the communal location, but instead with two residents, this was reasonable action for the landlord to take, and satisfied the resident’s request to allow for communal access to the sheds.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it responded to the resident’s enquiries about the use and allocation of the sheds on the estate.

Reasons

20. Despite repeated enquiries by the resident, the landlord’s explanations about the usage of one of the sheds in this complaint was later found to be incorrect.

Orders

21. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused to him.
22. Issue a response to the resident, as detailed in paragraph 16 above, if it has not done so already.
23. The landlord is also ordered to review its record keeping processes for the sheds in question, to ensure that each one’s status is clearly and accurately documented and communicated to the relevant residents.
24. The landlord must contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.