Wandle Housing Association Limited (202108812)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108812

Wandle Housing Association Limited

1 February 2022

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 reports of an outhouse (garden shed), built without permission by the previous resident.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident became a secure tenant of the landlord by way of mutual exchange on 8 February 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 21 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying that her neighbour had informed her that the outhouse (garden shed) “at the property”, was built illegally. She enquired if the landlord had carried out a full inspection prior to her moving in, and why it was allowed to stay up if it was illegally built.
4. An internal email on 29 April 2021 showed the landlord discussed the resident’s enquiries with its health and safety team. It advised the team that she said the outhouse had its own door, there were exposed electric wires which ran directly from her property to it, and it went into the neighbour’s boundaries. It also noted that the resident requested an inspection to make sure the outhouse was safe.
5. Internal emails between staff on 30 April 2021 showed that a surveyor had ensured the property was structurally safe and sound with no outstanding repairs. However, as it did not supply, maintain or remove sheds, it did not see the need to inspect the outhouse. The landlord advised it would raise an order for an electrician to isolate and remove the wires that ran into the shed. It suggested carrying out an inspection on the outhouse first. The landlord advised that it tried to contact the resident on three occasions but had no response, and so a voicemail was left.
6. On 2 May 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s lack of response to her enquiries, and about the safety and legality of the outhouse. She explained that the outhouse had been insulated with newspaper and had exposed electrical wires, which she believed made it a fire hazard. She said the outhouse was outside of her property’s boundary and had its own front door which opened directly on to the pavement. The resident said the issues raised could impact her safety if not resolved, and that she was disappointed with the lack of response. She requested evidence that the outhouse was inspected prior to her moving in.
7. On 4 May 2021 the landlord arranged an urgent inspection of the outhouse
8. On 8 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord that she had not received a complaint reference number. On 19 May 2021 the landlord advised that her complaint had not been received due to a technical error. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, and asked that she re-send it.
9. The resident resent her complaint by email on 20 May 2021. On 21 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged receipt of her complaint and advised she would receive a response within ten working days.
10. On 25 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It explained that a surveyor had inspected the outhouse on 13 May 2021 and had “reported that structure is deemed illegal and no permission was sought when it was built”. It advised that the surveyor was obtaining quotes from contractors to remove the outhouse. It said that the outhouse was out of bounds and should not be used. It apologised for the resident having cause to complain and for the delay in responding.
11.  The contractor sent the landlord a quote for the removal of the outhouse dated 21 June 2021.
12. On 1 July 2021 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said the surveyor had visited and confirmed the outhouse was an illegal structure, and contractors had inspected it to provide quotes. However, the work was still outstanding. She said the outhouse was encouraging vermin (rats, mice) which were roaming in to her patio area. The resident explained that the delay was not only impacting her, but also her neighbour; as the outhouse also encroached her neighbour’s garden space. She said the situation was distressing, caused her anxiety and she had made several phone calls requesting an update of when the work would be carried out. However, she was still awaiting a response.
13. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 8 July 2021. It explained that:
    1. The resident had accepted the property as seen through mutual exchange, and she was given a key to the outhouse by the previous tenant.
    2. It had viewed images of the property and location of the outhouse to ensure there was no danger to her and her family.
    3. The surveyor who attended her property reported the wires were not live, had been disconnected, and there were no issues with health and safety.
    4. It had reviewed its policies and verified it had no responsibility to remove the outhouse which was built without its permission. It advised the resident not to enter the outhouse as it was not part of her tenancy.
    5. The landlord apologised for not being able to meet her expectations and that she had cause to complain.

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and the resident. It states the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
15. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure sets out the responsibilities of the landlord prior to accepting an exchange. It advises that the landlord must inspect the property to ensure it is in good state of repair and appropriate for incoming household. It advises that the landlord must check if any alterations have been made or had been approved with its consent. It must ensure that any adaptations carried out by the resident are safe and whether the property requires any repair work to be carried out before or soon after the exchange, if successful.
16. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. The policy sets out a timescale of five working days to acknowledge a complaint, ten working days to issue a stage one complaint response and 20 working days to provide its final complaint response.
17. The landlord’s repair policy advises it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. It advises that it is responsible for making safe dangerous structures, and unsafe electrical lighting and/or fittings. It lists garden sheds and other outbuildings as a resident’s responsibility. The repair policy advises of the landlord and tenant act 1985, which requires landlords to ensure that homes are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an outhouse on the property, built illegally by the previous resident

18. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
19. On 2 May 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint, regarding the landlord’s lack of response to her enquiries. Internal emails showed the landlord had been investigating the issues raised on 21 April, and on 30 April 2021 it attempted to contact the resident multiple times but it was unsuccessful. It was appropriate for the landlord try to contact her, however when those attempts failed, it would have been good service if the landlord had also sent an email to update her of its next steps. This would have better managed her expectations, and ensured that she received its update. In its complaint response the landlord apologised that the resident had cause to complain and for the delay in responding with the information. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident, and this is not significant enough to be considered a service failure. 
20. The resident questioned the landlord about the legality and safety of the outhouse. The landlord liaised with its health and safety team to investigate the issues. In its complaint response it confirmed that on 13 May 2021, a surveyor had attended the resident’s property, inspected the outhouse and made safe the building. It confirmed there were no issues with health and safety. It deemed the outhouse an illegal structure as no permission was sought when it was built. It is not disputed that the outhouse in question is out of jurisdiction of the resident’s garden. Regardless of that, it was good practice to ensure the building was safe. The landlord advised the resident not to enter the outhouse as; it was not part of her tenancy. This was reasonable advice by the landlord in the circumstances. The repair policy states that it is responsible for making safe dangerous structures, and to ensure that homes are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The landlord acted in line with policy to ensure there was no risk to the resident’s health and safety.
21. The resident questioned if a full inspection had been carried out prior to her moving in and why the outhouse was allowed to stay up. The landlord’s records showed that a surveyor had inspected the property but did not inspect the outhouse as it did not supply, maintain nor remove sheds. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable as it was not aware of the presence of the outhouse at that time. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the structure once it was made aware. Although the landlord ensured the outhouse was made safe, it was not obliged to remove the structure, and it was outside the bounds of the resident’s property.
22. In the resident’s escalation report dated 1 July 2021 she said the delay in removing the outhouse was impacting her neighbour as the outhouse had encroached their garden space. If so, the neighbour would need to raise a complaint on their own behalf with the landlord, given that the outhouse appears to be on the landlord’s land. The resident said the situation was distressing and caused her anxiety. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a link between this issue complained about and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
23. Overall, the landlord’s actions and response to the complaints were reasonable and proportionate. If any new developments occur which do impact on the resident’s home (such as pests coming from the outhouse as the resident’s earlier mentioned) it is for the resident to first report the matter formally to the landlord, and then raise a formal complaint if necessary.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s raised concerns about the legality and safety of the outhouse.

Reasons

25. The landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures to inspect, and ensure the outhouse was made safe and posed no risk. Given the outhouse was not in the resident’s property, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to remove it.