Bristol City Council (202003586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003586

Bristol City Council

24 February 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 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing sheds against a garden wall.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
The resident has had an ongoing dispute since at least May 2019 with her neighbour relating to the condition of their garden and that her garden wall had been damaged as a result of the weight of two garden sheds placed against it. The landlord’s records show that from May 2019 onwards it visited and inspected the neighbour’ property on numerous occasions to ensure that the condition of the garden was improved and to detach the two sheds from the wall.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. She described the elements of the complaint as:
1. The neighbour had drilled into the wall and built the sheds against the wall without requesting her permission.
2. She had received poor support from the landlord’s staff members in her dispute with her neighbour about the sheds.
3. 27 years ago, she had been given permission to erect the garden wall, but not to install a gate. She wished to know why this decision was made.
4. Also 27 years ago she requested that the garage in the property was removed. This was declined and the landlord had not undertaken any maintenance of the garage since this request.
5. Her utility company had removed the garden path to undertake work to the electrics in the property. The landlord had yet to replace the path.
In its complaint responses, the landlord:
1. Explained that it had visited the neighbour’s garden when the issue was raised and had asked them to detach the sheds from the wall. An inspection undertaken in July 2019 confirmed that the sheds had been detached and found no damage to the wall.
2. Stated that it was satisfied with how its staff members had conducted themselves during the issue and found no evidence of service failure.
3. Noted that when the resident signed the tenancy agreement, she was informed that the landlord would not undertake any maintenance of the garage but would demolish it if it was found to be unsafe. Due to the time that had elapsed since these events, it would not investigate the matter further.
4. Explained that it was not responsible for maintenance of garden paths and that this would be the resident’s responsibility.
5. Informed the resident that it could find no record of her making a request for a gate and noted that gates in the area were due to be renewed in 2029 as part of a planned maintenance programme.
In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as how the landlord handled her reports of the sheds and that she disputed the landlord’s determination that no damage had been caused to the garden wall.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

Section 2 of the tenancy agreement relates to the tenant’s responsibilities for the maintenance of their property. Section 2.9 states that a tenant “must keep the property safe, in good condition, clean and free from rubbish and not allow its’ condition to deteriorate”. Section 2.19 states that a tenant “must maintain [their] garden including any hedges and trees”. Section 2.20 states that a tenant “must dispose of all of [their] household waste, rubbish and recycling safely and responsibly”.
Section 2.14 of the tenancy agreement relates to alterations and improvements. This, in part, states that a tenant “must not make any alteration or improvement to the property (excluding internal decorations), or install, erect or allow to be installed or erected any structure on or within the boundary of the property without obtaining written permission from [the landlord] first. [They] must also obtain and comply with any required Building Regulations and Planning Permission”.
Section 2.13 of the tenancy agreement relates to allowing the landlord access to the property. This, in part, states that a tenant “must allow [the landlord] or its representatives, agents or contractors access to the property at all reasonable hours to carry out necessary repairs, improvements, planned programmes, gas servicing and any safety checks, to inspect its condition and to complete new tenancy visits and tenancy audit. If [the landlord] believes there to be a risk of personal injury or a risk of damage to the property or an adjoining property or in order to comply with its statutory duties, you must allow it or its representatives, agents or contractors immediate access to the property at any time”.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that this Service will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to May 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s concerns about the sheds attached to the garden wall and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in April 2021. Therefore, the following elements will not be considered in the assessment:
1. What information was provided to the resident relating to the garage when the tenancy was signed in 1991.
2. What information was provided to the resident relating to repairs and maintenance of the garage in 1994.
3. Whether or not the landlord refused permission for the resident to install a gate in 1994.
4. Whether the landlord should have undertaken repairs to the garden path following work in the resident’s garden completed by her utility provider in 2014.
5. The resident’s request for the landlord to replace the garage door in 2014.
6. The resident’s request for the landlord to remove the garage door in December 2018, and the landlord’s removal of the door in January 2019.
Following the completion of the complaints process, the resident raised two more issues with the landlord relating to driveway gates and a compost heap potentially causing damage to the garden wall. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 August 2022 and recommended that she raise a new complaint into these matters.
Before a matter can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. Therefore, these elements will also not be considered in the assessment.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing sheds against a garden wall

Once the landlord had been informed by the resident of her concerns that the sheds in her neighbour’s property were causing damage to her garden wall, it had a duty to respond to the issue in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
On receipt of the first report on 2 May 2019, the landlord acknowledged the report and visited the neighbour’s property to inspect the garden. Internal correspondence from 20 May 2019 stated that the condition of the neighbour’s garden was a tenancy breach and that the two sheds in the garden were attached to the wall. The neighbour agreed to improve the condition of the garden and detach the sheds from the wall.
The resident called the landlord on 20 September 2019 to inform it that the sheds remained attached to the walls. The landlord called the neighbour on the same day, who confirmed that one shed remained attached and he would arrange for it to be detached.
An inspection undertaken by a surveyor of the sheds and the wall on 10 October 2019 found that the sheds in the neighbour’s property to be “free standing and as such is not affecting the block boundary wall with [the resident’s property]. In regard to the resident’s concerns that the wall had been damaged, the surveyor stated that the gaps in the wall’s blockwork were expansion joints, explaining that “these are purposely built into blockwork of this type as a means of solving potential problems caused by movement including, structural loading probably being the most likely in this case. As we discussed over time different sections of ground will move depending on the amount of moisture they contain and these joints are there to ensure the wall does not crack under these circumstances”. A further property inspection undertaken on 21 November 2019 confirmed that the sheds were detached from the wall and observed an overall improvement of the condition of the neighbour’s garden.
Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. It arranged to inspect the neighbour’s property to ensure it was in compliance with the relevant tenancy clauses detailed above. When the garden was found to be in breach of these clauses, the landlord requested that the neighbour clear the garden and undertook regular inspections for more than a year to ensure the garden’s condition improved. The landlord also arranged for a surveyor to inspect the sheds and the garden wall to ensure the sheds were constructed to an acceptable standard and had not damaged the wall. The landlord’s records show that it responded to all of the resident’s telephone calls and emails, and arranged regular visits to both the resident and her neighbour to discuss the issues, inspect the neighbour’s garden and to keep the resident updated on what action it was taking. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to the reports.
The resident has disputed the landlord’s position that the wall was not damaged by the sheds. On 1 June 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that she had arranged for a builder to examine the wall. She explained that the builder had informed that “the benders are broken in the wall” as a result of the weight put on it by the sheds. The landlord replied the next day. It stated that it’s surveyor was not aware of the term ‘benders’ as it related to the wall and requested a copy of her builder’s report. There is no evidence that a copy of this report was provided to the landlord.
Therefore, without any corroborating evidence from the resident that disputed its position, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors and staff members that the neighbour’s sheds were free-standing structures and had not caused any damage to the wall.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of a neighbour installing sheds against a garden wall.

Reasons

Given all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns regarding the proximity of the shed to her property. In addition, the landlord undertook checks to ensure that the neighbour’s sheds were not attached to the resident’s wall.