From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Newark and Sherwood District Council (202346200)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346200

Newark and Sherwood District Council

29 August 2025

 

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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s request to have a driveway installed at his property.
    2. The resident’s complaint about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.

Background

  1. The residents are secure tenants of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedoom semi-detached bungalow. The complaint is being pursued by the resident and his partner, for the purposes of this report both are referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. On 8 March 2023, the landlord held a meeting with the resident and his neighbours. In this meeting, parking issues were raised. The landlord said there were plans to build driveways for some properties on the street where they all lived.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord to complain in a letter dated 10 November 2023. He was unhappy because:
    1. He understood that the landlord had told him that he would be getting a drive, but this was no longer happening.
    2. Of the conduct of the landlord’s staff in a meeting that had recently taken place.
    3. Of the conduct of that landlord’s staff when looking into the resident’s concern about not getting a driveway.
    4. He believed that the decision to not provide him with a driveway was discriminatory.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2023. It said:
    1. It had spoken to Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC), who owned part of the land that would need to be changed for the driveway to be installed. The landlord would need NCC’s permission to make these changes. NCC had said they had health and safety concerns. The landlord believed they would be unlikely to approve any project related to driveways because of these concerns.
    2. The meeting notes from the meeting on 8 March 2023 stated that residents were told that not everyone would be getting a driveway.
    3. It could find no evidence the resident was discriminated against as there were other residents who would not get a driveway. It apologised if the resident’s felt let down.
    4. It could not comment on the conduct of the staff members. The landlord said it would investigate the issues in line with its own internal procedures. It apologised for any distress caused.
    5. It partially upheld their complaint. The landlord said it should have liaised with NCC before any consultation on parking in the area so that it could more appropriately manage resident expectations. However, it felt it was clear in the meeting of 8 March 2023 that there was a possibility that not all residents would get a driveway.
  5. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 14 December 2023. He explained why certain properties on the street needed driveways. The resident said he believed that the stage 1 complaint handler already had made up their mind before investigating the complaint.
  6. On 9 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. In the response, it:
    1. Explained the history of parking in the area.
    2. Said it had been consistent in its position on driveways in the resident’s street.
    3. Explained that the reason the resident’s property was not included in the parking project was due to limited budget as lamp posts would need to be moved and paths changed.
    4. Said that if budget was not an issue, there would have been problems as it does not own all the land that would need changing for the driveway to be installed.
    5. Agreed to consider the resident’s request for a driveway as a separate request from the parking project. However, it said it could offer no guarantees on the result. It set out an action plan to look into the request.
    6. Said it had investigated the complaint about staff conduct. It explained that the issue had been investigated and that one member of staff had been spoken to. However, it said the actions of the member of staff who handled the stage 1 complaint were fair.
    7. Said it would conduct a review of the parking project to understand if it had improved parking.
    8. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 March 2024 to explain its decision on the resident’s request. It said:
    1. It would not be undertaking any further parking projects for the street.
    2. Not everyone on the resident’s street backed the plans.
    3. NCC advised that there could be health and safety concerns if driveways were installed.
    4. The estimated costs of the project did not represent value for money.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to us on 14 March 2024 as he was unhappy with the way his complaint had been handled. He has explained that as an outcome he would like a driveway installed at his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past this date of the final complaint response, which are directly relevant to the issues raised in the complaint. We have considered up to the landlord’s communication of 11 March 2024. This is directly relevant to the complaint and the actions promised in the landlord’s stage 2 response.

The resident’s request to have a driveway installed at his property

  1. The resident has asked for the landlord to build a driveway on his property. He has not asked for permission to undertake the work himself, but for the landlord to do so. The decision on whether to undertake the work is the landlord’s to make. It is not our role to decide whether the resident should have been given a driveway. Our role is to decide whether the landlord acted appropriately when looking into and responding to the concerns the resident raised.
  2. We have also used the landlord’s car parking improvement programmes guidance (the guidance) to assess the landlord’s actions. The guidance says that requests for car parking improvement projects will be considered against set principles. These principles are the affected resident’s opinions, the impact on the project area, the landlord perspective, value for money and cost, the complexity and health and safety. Requests are considered on a case-by-case basis.
  3. The resident raised a complaint about not being provided with a drive as part of a parking project in a letter dated 10 November 2023. The landlord investigated this as part of its complaint responses provided on 4 December 2023 and 9 January 2024. The landlord explained that the resident’s property had been excluded from the project due to a limited budged and complex changes that would be needed such as moving lamp posts and amending paths. The resident was informed this could be the case in a meeting that happened on 8 March 2023. These reasons are in line with the guidance, the landlord provided a consistent and reasonable explanation for why the resident could not have a driveway.
  4. However, the landlord said that the resident was informed of this decision in a site visit on 8 October 2023. There is no evidence of this visit and so no evidence that the resident was informed this at the time. The resident does not dispute being told this prior to the landlord’s complaint responses. In the evidence provided, he makes reference to speaking to a member of the landlord’s staff in early October. It is therefore reasonable to assume that this did occur. Though it suggests a record keeping failure from the landlord that informing the resident of this decision was not recorded at the time.
  5. The landlord has not provided evidence related to the original decision not to include the resident’s property as part of the parking project. We would not investigate the decision as to why the resident was refused, but it is difficult to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its guidance without this information. However, the information provided by the landlord in its complaint responses are consistent with the reasons set out in the guidance. The landlord has provided a tenant consultation from 24 April 2023 which shows it seeking other residents’ views. The notes from the meeting of 8 March 2023 show the landlord was taking into consideration the complexity of the project also. All of this suggests that the landlord was taking the guidance into consideration when making its decision. However, it is a record keeping failure of the landlord that this was not record within its systems.
  6. As part of its complaint responses, the landlord contacted NCC to get their view on a building a driveway on the resident’s property. The landlord needed NCC’s permission to undertake the works as they own part of the land that would be affected by the proposal. NCC raised safety concerns and said that they would not approve the project. The landlord was right to recognise that this should have been done earlier in the process. It demonstrated learning in doing so. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of NCC as part of its response to the resident’s request for a driveway.
  7. The landlord said it would deal with the resident’s request for a driveway separately in its stage 2 complaint response and provided an action plan of its next steps. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider this as a project and not an individual request for a driveway given the resident was consistent in asking for driveways for a number of properties on the street. The parking feasibility report that the landlord produced in February 2024 took into consideration all aspects of its guidance. The landlord decided that the project should not go ahead. The landlord showed a willingness to ensure that the resident’s request was fully explored. Its decision-making was fair in the circumstances. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its guidance.
  8. The landlord communicated its decision to the resident on 11 March 2024. It had created its report in February 2024 and explored parking alternatives in a meeting with NCC on 6 March 2024. This was a reasonable time frame for it to have communicated its decision to the resident.
  9. However, the landlord’s communications with the resident could have been more consistent in this period. Its stage 2 response said that it would explore parking and a driveway for the resident, but this was dependent on several things, including budget and resources. However, the landlord provided a copy of a letter that was circulated to other residents on the street, to the resident on 17 January 2024. This letter said it was exploring the possibility of parking but there was no budget or resources to undertake the project at this time. While the landlord was consistent with the resident in saying there were no guarantees, it could have been clearer with the resident on how likely the project was. In its stage 2 response the landlord recognised raised expectations as a flaw in its communications with the resident. The landlord should have been clearer that the budget was not available at that time with the resident. It was a shortcoming of the landlord that it was not clearer in its communications with the resident here.
  10. The landlord acted reasonably in investigating and considering the resident’s request for a driveway. Its reasons for not approving the resident’s request were in line with its guidance. While it has not provided direct records of the resident’s property being excluded from the project, it clearly communicated its reasons to the resident. These reasons are in line with its guidance. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction over not being included in the first parking project, it fully explored the resident’s proposal for further driveways on the street. It explained its reasons for not undertaking the project to the resident in a clear way and in a reasonable timeframe. While there were shortcomings in its communication with the resident, this did not impact on the overall outcome. We therefore find that there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for a driveway.
  11. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights the importance of good record keeping. Considering the record keeping issues identified here, we recommend that the landlord review the report to ensure its record keeping is in line with what is set out in the report in future.

The resident’s complaint about staff conduct

  1. It is not our role to determine how a landlord should handle issues with specific staff members, such as disciplinary actions. When investigating a complaint about a landlord, we look at the landlord’s overall response. We only assess individual actions if they were done on behalf of the landlord. If a staff member’s actions cause a service failure, any decisions or recommendations we make will be directed at the landlord, not the individual.
  2. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to 2 members of the landlord’s staff. We will not form a view on whether the staff members’ actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. The landlord does not have any policies or procedures for complaints about staff conduct. When there are no policies or procedures, we make an assessment based on what is reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. The landlord should generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. In conducting our investigations, we rely on the evidence supplied to us to determine what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident complained about the conduct of a surveyor in his letter dated 10 November 2023 as he was unhappy about the way the surveyor had acted in a site visit to his property. The landlord investigated this as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 response. There is evidence it got the views of the member of staff, their line manager as well as getting a statement from a third-party witness. The landlord acted reasonably here and investigated the matter in a fair and measured way.
  5. The landlord explained this to the resident in its stage 2 response. It apologised for the incident and explained that it was addressing the issue with its Surveyor. The landlord has also confirmed to this service on 15 November 2024 that in the period between the incident and the complaint being submitted the member of staff received ‘customer friendly’ training. We would not expect the landlord to detail precisely what it said to a member of staff as part of its complaint response. The landlord’s explanation and response to the resident was reasonable in the circumstances and it took proportionate action based on the information available.
  6. The resident also complained about the conduct of the member of staff who handled the stage 1 complaint. The landlord explained that in its stage 2 response it had spoken to the member of staff, to the resident and reviewed the correspondence that took place while looking into the resident’s concerns. It concluded it could not find evidence to back up the resident’s concerns. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to have taken and demonstrates that the landlord did investigate the matter.
  7. However, the landlord did not keep a record of the conversation that took place between it and the member of staff. It would have been preferable to keep a record of this conversation given it was taking place as part of a complaint that had been submitted by the resident. The landlord’s actions were not reasonable in this instance.
  8. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It investigated the complaints made by the resident and took action which was within the range of reasonable responses available to it. The resident was caused frustration by the interactions with the landlord’s staff. However, there is no evidence that there was a further impact on the resident beyond this. We find that there was no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Determination 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have a driveway installed at his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management to ensure its record keeping is in line with what is set out in the report in future.