Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

bpha Limited (202207132)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207132

bpha Limited

3 January 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 response to the resident’s request to install a wood burning stove within the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who raised a request in February 2022 to install a wood burner within the property. This request was declined by the landlord, who explained that as per the resident’s tenancy agreement, this would not be allowed as it constituted a potential fire hazard.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and raised a complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2022. She highlighted that the wood burner would be installed at her own expense, and to professional specification. It would be maintained by her family, who work as wood burner specialists. She felt that due to the rising cost of energy, as the sole-earner in her household, she would need to reduce costs. She felt the landlord’s reasoning to decline the installation did not make sense, especially given that her neighbours had made alterations to their homes without permission from the landlord.
  3. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord stated it would investigate her proposal to install a wood burning stove in more detail provided the resident informed it of how she would maintain, upkeep and install this. After it conducted a further review and investigation, it booked a virtual appointment on 7 July 2022, with the resident and her family to discuss its findings, at which it further declined the resident’s proposal. In its stage two complaint response on 19 July 2022, it reiterated its decision. It offered to carry out the installation of an alternative cylinder-based heater, in order to help lower energy costs, but this was declined by the resident.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, escalating her complaint to this Service on 3 October 2022. She believed that the reasoning behind the landlord’s decision was not reasonable, and that as she had approval from her MP, felt that the landlord should reconsider its decision.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. Section 7 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must ensure they reduce the risk of fire within the property. It specifies that residents, their friends, family and relatives must not install any kind of fire within the property, including open fires or wood burners.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install a wood burning stove within the property

  1. The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to install the wood burner was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. Although the resident’s precise request was not provided in evidence to this Service, the landlord appears to have acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement, and its interests in minimising the risk of fire within its property.
  2. Records show the landlord considered the resident’s request appropriately. Upon receiving her complaint on 29 April 2022, it carried out a review of its responses up to that point and agreed that its initial response to the resident did not meet its expectations and service standards. It acknowledged that it had delayed in responding to the resident and that it had not initially set out a detailed reason for declining her request.
  3. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord agreed to reconsider her request, and this showed it was willing to treat the resident fairly. In its stage one complaint response, it had requested evidence regarding how the resident intended to install, maintain and use the wood burner. It appropriately looked to manage the resident’s expectations, stating that it could only reconsider the proposal, and would need to review this with its own specialists and asset management team. It made the resident aware of a potential delay in providing a final response, explaining that this type of request may take longer due to it requiring a more detailed investigation.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a meeting with the resident, at which its specialist explained its findings. It provided the resident with a comprehensive explanation of its position, believing the wood burning stove to present fire, health and environmental concerns, and that the property was not designed, from a build perspective, to house this type of heating.
  5. From the information available, the landlord was entitled to hold this position, especially given its responsibility to ensure that all residents are safe within their homes, as well as ensuring that any alterations do not represent a risk. While it is acknowledged that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s conclusions, it set out its reasoning clearly and consistently. It also acted in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, seeking to ensure that any risk of fire is minimised. The landlord acted fairly by using its discretion to offer an alternative heating solution for the resident, particularly given her frustrations over her increase in energy bills. However, the resident declined its offer as was her right.
  6. Additionally, in its complaint responses it was positive that the landlord identified learning outcomes as a result of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged in its internal communications that the complaint may have been prevented had its initial decision outcome included a more detailed explanation. It aimed to have information regarding log/wood burners on its website, as well as develop a specific log/wood burner policy. This was appropriate and showed the landlord had considered how to prevent complaints of this nature moving forward.
  7. The Ombudsman notes the resident remains dissatisfied over the landlord’s decision. However, the evidence available to this investigation indicates the landlord interacted with the resident in a reasonable manner, acknowledging its initial delay in responding to her and providing an apology. It also acted in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement when making its decision and its position was reasonable. The landlord also provided the resident with a comprehensive explanation regarding its position and used its discretion to offer an alternative to the resident’s original proposal.

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 the resident’s request to install a wood burning stove within the property.