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

Trafford Housing Trust Limited (202218381)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218381

Trafford Housing Trust Limited

8 August 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 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 handling of its request that the resident remove items from the communal area of her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat with a communal area for the property’s building to the front, and a shared back garden allocated to her property and that of a neighbour.
  2. In October 2021, the resident was asked by the landlord to move her plant pots away from her front door and more towards her kitchen window, as it felt that these posed a safety risk towards people entering the property, or were in the way of the property’s route for escaping fire. There is no evidence that any further events occurred in the resident’s case for the next 6 months.
  3. In April 2022, the resident notified the landlord that she had rearranged her plant pots and that, as per a conversation that she had with it in the previous week, had added a wooden bench. On 22 July 2022, following a visit to the resident, the landlord requested that she remove the items from outside of the front of her property, as the area was for communal use and should remain clear of individuals’ items at all times. On 26 July 2022, the resident explained to the landlord that she was given verbal permission to have the bench by 2 different members of its staff on 27 April 2022, and again on a later date.
  4. On 10 August 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord that she had been asked to remove her bench from outside the front of her property, even though she had its permission to keep this there. She felt like she was being “segregated”, as no one else had been asked to remove their plants or bench.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2022, where it stated that it had a recent fire safety project, which concluded that all items kept in the front communal garden must be removed. It also stated that it had identified the wooden bench as a hazard, as this was kept next to the building and would be a “consumable” item in the event of a fire. The landlord explained that, as the resident had use of the rear garden, she would be permitted to keep her plant pots and bench there, while it was looking into and would update residents on the creation of a communal seating area.
  6. On 23 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that, after further investigation, the resident’s plant pots and clothes airer, as well as her bench, would not be permitted to be kept at the front of her property. It understood that she had been given conflicting information about this in the past, and it apologised for that. However, to ensure that this was in line with the landlord’s fire safety legislation,it said that all items stored in the front communal area must be moved to the rear garden by 10 October 2022. It also explained that this was being communicated to all residents.
  7. On 20 October 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She stated that she had accepted the decision that she could not keep her plant pots at the front of her property, but she did not accept that she would have to remove the bench. The resident said that she had asked the landlord if she could have a metal bench instead and was told that she could. However, she stated that she had asked for a letter confirming this, but was not sent one. The resident also said that she still felt “targeted”, as other people still had items outside of their properties, and they had told her that they had not been asked to remove these.
  8. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 8 November 2022. It stated that the resident was previously told that she could keep the items in front of her property, but it apologised that the information was incorrect and was not in line with its policy and procedure. This stated that all communal areas must be kept clear of items that were a fire hazard, could block a means of escape, cause someone to trip, or were hazardous in any other way. The landlord explained that the plant pots were a hazard due to their close proximity to the building, and the potential trip hazard they posed. It also stated that the resident had been asked to remove the items after an estate inspection, which it was applying to all residents and would take action for if they did not do so, and that it did not uphold her complaint.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she felt the landlord had mishandled her case. It subsequently repeated on 26 January 2023 that she had to remove the items from the front of her property or she would be in breach of her tenancy agreement, which it could consider enforcing their removal for after the expiry of a 14-day torts notice. The landlord later provided the Ombudsman with confirmation from a qualified fire safety expert that the communal area in front of the property was covered by fire safety legislation, together with details of their qualifications.
  10. The resident disagreed that her items were a hazard, and she believed she was being “discriminated” against by the landlord and 2 of her neighbours. This was because other residents still had items outside of their properties, she thought that 2 other neighbours had reported her to it, as it had warned them for verbally abusing her and her child, and she wanted to be able to keep her items outside the front of her property, including to help her mental wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has suggested that 2 of her neighbours and the landlord have been “discriminatory” towards her. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not investigate matters where the resident seeks an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. We cannot determine whether “discrimination” has taken place, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and the legal determination of discrimination is a matter for the courts to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s case about the removal of items from the communal area.
  2. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that she has been issued with a torts notice by the landlord. This was issued after she had exhausted its complaints procedure, and there is no evidence that a fresh complaint from her about this has exhausted the procedure again. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure yet, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond to this under the procedure. Therefore, the resident’s unhappiness that she was issued with a torts notice is not something that we can consider yet.

Request that the resident remove items from the communal area

  1. As per her tenancy agreement, the resident must participate in keeping her property’s communal areas clear of obstructions of any kind, which must be maintained by the landlord, and these are not included as part of the property under the agreement. Therefore, the landlord has an obligation to ensure the safety of its residents by arranging the removal of items in the communal areas, which the resident must participate in. In this case, the landlord identified that the resident’s items outside the front of her property posed a safety risk during its fire safety project. This meant that it was reasonable that, on 22 July 2022, it then requested that she remove her items to keep the communal area free of obstructions and hazards, as this was required by the tenancy agreement.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident does not agree that the items that she was asked to remove from the front of her property, her plant pots, bench and clothes airer, were hazardous. However, it is reasonable that the landlord relied on the expertise informing the opinion of the qualified experts who carried out the fire safety project and found these to be a safety risk. This is particularly because the landlord provided the Ombudsman with confirmation from such an expert that the communal area in front of the property was covered by fire safety legislation, together with details of their qualifications.
  3. This was also supported by the landlord’s standard operating procedure for items in communal areas, which confirms that all items left in its communal areas, which are not its fixtures or fittings, need to be managed in compliance with fire safety legislation, and that its staff are responsible for arranging the removal of even low-risk items from these areas. It is required to do so by issuing warnings and, if necessary, serving torts notices to remove such items, which it did in the resident’s case by asking her to do so again after further investigation on 23 September 2022, before it warned her to remove the items or face a torts notice permitting it to do so on 26 January 2023.
  4. This meant that the landlord appropriately undertook a risk assessment of the items in the communal area at the front of the resident’s property, and it applied the requirements of the tenancy agreement and its standard operating procedure for items in communal areas accordingly. Therefore, there was no failing on its part in asking her to remove the items, before warning her that she would be served with a torts notice to permit it to do so.
  5. It is also acknowledged, however, that the resident was previously given permission by the landlord to keep items outside the front of her property on various dates before she was asked to remove them, and so it was frustrating when it subsequently withdrew its permission on 22 July 2022. Nevertheless, she had to follow her tenancy agreement in relation to this, especially when it considered that the items were potential fire hazard risks.
  6. Even so, it would have been helpful if the information given to the resident was consistent regrading this matter. It was therefore good practice that the landlord used its internal complaint procedure to clarify its position. Furthermore, it has provided an alternative solution by explaining that, as the resident had use of the rear garden, she would be permitted to keep her plant pots and bench there.
  7. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident reported that she had asked the landlord for permission to keep a metal bench outside the front of her property, but that she was only given verbal and not the written permission for this that she had asked it for. As she has explained that she has sought this for reasons including to help her mental wellbeing, and it told her that it was looking into and would update residents on the creation of a communal seating area, the following recommendations have been made to it below. The landlord has been recommended to try and resolve the resident’s concerns about the lack of outdoor seating in the property’s communal areas by confirming its position on a metal bench to her in writing, and updating her on a communal seating area.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of its request that the resident remove items from the communal area of her property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Write to the resident to confirm its position on whether or not she has its permission to keep a metal bench in the communal area outside the front of her property, and if so where.
    2. Provide the resident with an update on its investigation into, and any plans for, its creation of a communal seating area for residents serving her property.