Southend on Sea City Council — case 202450515

Decision Case ID 202450515 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southend on Sea City Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 20 October 2025 Background The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house with her adult children. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including Raynaud’s disease, a heart condition and a vitamin D deficiency. The resident complained that she wanted the landlord to remove a concrete shed from her garden and for it to build a kitchen extension.

The resident asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the request for: shed removal. a kitchen extension. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for shed removal. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for a kitchen extension.

There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons In summary, we found that the landlord: Did not respond fully to the resident’s request that it remove the shed due to her medical condition. Did not follow through with action it agreed to inspect the shed for outstanding repairs. Did not provide a complaint response that fully addressed all points raised. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right.

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 14 November 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of her request for shed removal. No later than 14 November 2025 3 Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the landlord did not complete actions it agreed to inspect the shed for outstanding repairs. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection.

The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must confirm to the resident in writing the circumstances when it may consider further repairs/work to the shed. No later than 28 November 2025 4 The landlord must contact the resident to confirm medical conditions it has recorded for her and check this is accurate.

No later than 28 November 2025 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord consider implementing a property improvements/adaptions policy for clarity, and to ensure its staff have appropriate guidance on how to respond to such requests. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 5 January 2025 The resident raised a complaint to the landlord requesting it remove a shed from her garden.

She said she had been asking for this since her tenancy started. She said she wanted to make use of her garden due to her medical condition. She also said she wanted it to provide a kitchen extension. 24 January 2025 The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: the resident was aware the shed came with the house when her tenancy began. it had made repairs to the shed in 2020, but it could not see any evidence it had agreed to remove it. it had found no evidence a kitchen extension had been discussed or approved.

28 January 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said her complaint points had not been addressed by the landlord. 28 February 2025 The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had reviewed its stage 1 complaint response and considered this was complete and that it provided all relevant details. properties surrounding the resident’s own were a mixture of different ownerships. It said it was not its policy to extend properties but there may be exceptional reasons where it may agree this.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s position on her request for removal of the shed and for a kitchen extension. She wanted this work completed and compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint Request for shed removal Finding Maladministration We have not seen any records from 2016, when the tenancy began, relating to the shed. It is therefore unclear what the resident discussed with the landlord about this. The landlord’s lettable standard states that it will remove all “resident installed” sheds as part of the voids process.

The landlord noted internally in March 2020 that the resident was told at the start of her tenancy that the shed “came with the house”. The landlord noted the shed is constructed from concrete. We have seen no evidence it had been installed by a previous resident and should therefore have been removed by the landlord during the void period. The landlord told the resident in 2020 that it did not remove “brick built” sheds unless there was a structural issue. It also said its surveyor had inspected the shed and considered it to be structurally sound and repairable.

It completed some repairs to the shed later in 2020. When the resident complained to the landlord in January 2025, she did not say she had any structural concerns about the shed. The landlord’s complaint response appropriately considered whether it had previously agreed to remove the shed. Its position on this was reasonable. But there was more it should have done to address her request that the shed be removed to help with her medical condition. Its complaint responses did not attempt to address this at all.

The landlord told us it does not have a property improvement/adaptions policy. Such a policy would help to provide its staff with clear guidance on how to respond to requests for improvements or adaptions. Given what the resident had said about her medical conditions, the landlord should reasonably have directed her on the process for disabled facilities grant (DFG). It is unclear whether she would have been eligible for such a grant. However, clear information from the landlord would have allowed her to explore this.

As the resident had also raised concerns that it had not properly recorded her medical conditions, it should also have confirmed information it held about these. That it did not take these actions was a failing. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it would arrange for a building surveyor visit to check on any outstanding shed repairs. However, there is no evidence it subsequently attempted to arrange this with the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response made no reference to this, and the resident told us she did not hear again from the landlord about it.

The landlord noted internally that repair work identified in 2020 had been completed. But it had committed in its stage 1 response to inspecting the shed for outstanding repairs. It should have done so. The resident had also said the shed was making the garden inaccessible due to “uneven ground”. It should have attended to inspect the shed and concerns about the ground around it. This would have shown it had appropriately considered any work that was within its repairs obligations.

That it did not follow up to arrange to inspect issues as agreed was a failing. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the house. These obligations would typically not extend to sheds/outbuildings. The resident’s tenancy conditions set out the landlord’s repair obligation. However, these and the tenancy agreement do not refer to outbuilding/shed repairs. The resident’s complaint to the landlord, and us, was focused on her request that it remove the shed.

However, there was some lack of clarity in the landlord’s communications about repair responsibilities. It said in its stage 1 complaint response that responsibility for shed repairs lay with the resident. But it went on to say in the same response that it would inspect the shed for outstanding repairs. If it planned to take this action exceptionally, it would have been better for it to clearly explain this. Doing so would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations for future repairs.

That it did not do so was a failing. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident aimed at recognising the impact of the failings identified. This award is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Complaint Request for a kitchen extension Finding No maladministration The resident asked the landlord to provide her with a kitchen extension and set out her belief that she had been denied this as a previous tenant refused this work.

In its complaint response the landlord said that it had nothing on file to suggest it had discussed or approved a kitchen extension. We acknowledge the resident believes the landlord has completed work to extend neighbouring properties in the past. The landlord explained in its complaint response that these properties may be privately owned. Not landlord owned. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had agreed a kitchen extension, or that it had previously been requested by the resident.

Such work would not fall within the landlord’s repair obligation under the tenancy agreement. Instead, it is an improvement which it is not obliged to undertake. The landlord outlined in its stage 2 complaint response that it was not its policy to extend properties, unless there were exceptional reasons. It appropriately directed the resident to information from the council to apply for disability adaptions if she believed this may apply to her. That was reasonable. Complaint Complaint handling Finding Service failure The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints.

Our findings are: The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord’s provided both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint response within timescales set out in its policy. As set out above, the landlord’s complaint response failed to fully respond to the resident about her request for the shed to be removed due to her medical conditions. In line with the Code, the landlord should have ensured all points of the complaint had been fully addressed.

That it did not do so was a complaint handling failing. This has resulted in the resident not receiving a full response to her concerns. In line with the remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord apologise for this failing. Learning The landlord should ensure it responds in full to all points of a complaint. The landlord should follow up and complete actions set out in its complaint responses. Communication While the landlord communicated appropriately with the resident about the progress of her complaint, its response should have been clearer on the responsibility for shed repairs.