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.

Bristol City Council (202309059)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309059

Bristol City Council

20 June 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 the resident’s concerns about her driveway.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since July 2020. She lives in a 2 bedroom house which has a driveway. The resident was supported by a representative from her local law centre at times during this case. Therefore, when appropriate, we have referred to the representative accordingly.
  2. On 15 February 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that an area on her driveway was broken. She said that it was a trip hazard for her young children. The landlord attended the same day and made safe the area by cordoning it off.
  3. On 20 March 2023 the resident requested an update from the landlord in relation to remedial works. It told her that the works were being planned to repair the driveway, and it would update her “shortly”. On 4 July 2023 the landlord inspected the driveway.
  4. The resident subsequently contacted us on 15 September 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord and wished to raise a complaint. She said that the driveway repairs remained outstanding, and that the landlord was not responding to her emails.
  5. On or around 20 October 2023 the landlord completed the works on the driveway.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 3 November 2023. It said that in accordance with its complaints policy it could not consider the resident’s complaint. It explained that this was because the local law centre was acting on the resident’s behalf and the resident had stated that she intended to take the matter to court.
  7. On 24 November 2023 the resident escalated her complaint through this Service. We told the landlord that as there was no evidence of active court proceedings, it should provide the resident with its final response to her complaint.
  8. On 1 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it had carried out the repair in October 2023. It said that the driveway formed part of the resident’s the garden. Therefore, it was her responsibility to maintain. It said that it acknowledged that it took some time to resolve the issue, but it had been in contact with the resident’s solicitor. It said that the reason for the delay provided by the repairs department was reasonable.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that she is concerned that the landlord has stated that it will not repair her driveway going forward as it her responsibility. She has also stated that the landlord’s October 2023 repair was not the repair that it told her it would carry out. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments. However, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaints. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. It is acknowledged that the landlord shared information about obligations and responsibilities within its complaint response. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised concern in response to this specifically at the time. As such, the resident may wish to raise this, together with her concerns about the scope of works to the driveway directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her driveway

  1. The Housing Act 2004 has expectations about housing being free from hazards that arise from a deficiency in land in the vicinity and an absence of maintenance or repair. Therefore, if a resident has raised concerns about the safety of the land, while it does not automatically create a repair obligation on the landlord, it would be reasonable for it to assess and confirm its position.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states that tenants are responsible for repairs within their gardens. However, it assumed responsibility for the driveway repair and we have therefore assessed whether its actions in completing the works were appropriate.
  3. In response to the resident’s initial report about safety concerns of her driveway, the landlord attended the same day and made it safe. Given the nature of the resident’s concerns, its response was reasonable.
  4. However, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, or her representative, as to when the works would take place. This caused her distress and inconvenience as she was left not knowing whether her concerns would be resolved. It also meant that she had to chase the landlord for an update in March 2023. This could reasonably have been avoidable if the landlord updated her.
  5. In response to the resident’s March 2023 contact, the landlord said that the driveway repairs were being planned, and it would update her “shortly”. The landlord may not have been able to provide the resident with a specific timeframe. However, given that a month had already passed, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained the reason why the matter had not progressed. Also, why it was unable to confirm a completion date at that time. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the matter in a timely manner.
  6. In addition, given that the landlord accepted that it would repair the driveway, it should have ensured it did so within a reasonable timeframe. However, the resident continued to chase it for update in the months that followed. It was not until the end of June 2023 that the landlord contacted the resident through her representative to make an appointment to carry out an inspection for the works. The inspection was subsequently carried out on 4 July 2023.
  7. This meant that it took the landlord approximately 4 months to book an inspection following its initial attendance in February 2023. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that during that period it reasonably and proactively progressed the matter. Thus, it has not demonstrated that the delay was unavoidable. Therefore, given the circumstances, the length of time was unreasonable.
  8. Furthermore, during that period, the resident requested updates from the landlord. There is no evidence that it responded to her directly or to her representative. This have caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  9. On 24 July 2023 the resident told the landlord that the fencing that it had placed around the broken part of the driveway to cordon off the area had blown away. She said that the area was no longer safe. That there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or investigated the matter further is unreasonable. It meant the landlord failed to ensure that the area was made safe again.
  10. It is noted that the landlord took reasonable steps to book an appointment to complete the driveway repairs from end of July 2023 onwards. It was agreed with the resident that the works would go ahead on 20 October 2023.
  11. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable and proactive steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about her driveway in a timely manner. It also missed several opportunities to be transparent in its dealings with her, and to keep her updated. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her driveway.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would:
    1. respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    2. not consider complaints if the resident, or a person acting on behalf of them stated that they intended to take court proceedings on the matter.
  2. The resident told the landlord that she wanted to make a complaint about its delay in repairing her driveway in May and July 2023. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded to either request. The reason that it did not, is unclear. Nonetheless that it did not was unreasonable. As a result, the resident incurred time and trouble seeking assistance us to pursue her complaint. This could have been avoidable if the landlord had responded to her requests accordingly.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s September 2023 complaint within 35 working days. This was a significant departure from its policy timescales of 15 working days. There is no evidence that it kept the resident updated about the status of her complaint or notified her that it required an extension. This would caused her distress and inconvenience. The reason for the delayed response is unclear. However, that there was one is unreasonable. It is noted that at the time of the complaint the landlord’s policy timescales for stage 1 complaint responses did not align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it has since revised its complaint policy to do so. Therefore, we have not made an order for the landlord to review its policy.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it was unable to consider the resident’s complaint because she had stated that she intended to take court proceedings on the matter. While this may have been the case, we have not been provided with evidence to corroborate the landlord’s account. It is noted that during this case the resident was being supported by the local law centre to resolve matter. However, there is no evidence that any legal proceedings had started.
  5. Our March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so such as the commencement of legal proceedings. We defined the “commencement of legal proceedings” as the “details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court.” Thus, instructing a legal representative does not mean legal proceedings have started. It is acknowledged that the landlord may have followed its complaint handling policy. However, its policy did not align with the Code at this time. Therefore, it is our view that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s complaint.
  6. That it did not meant that the resident incurred additional time and trouble as she sought further assistance from the Ombudsman to pursue her complaint. This may have been avoided if the landlord had considered the complaint in line with the Code. It is noted that the landlord has since revised its complaint policy to align with the Code on this matter. This is positive.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it had taken “some time” to resolve the issue. It stated, however, that it considered the delay was reasonable. While it is unclear, the landlord’s response suggests that the reasons for the delay were in relation to the resident’s requests for a female operative to carry out the driveway repairs.
  8. While the landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s request, the evidence shows it was first made in September 2023. This was only a month or so before the works were completed. As such, this does not account for all of the delay.
  9. This is also the case in relation to the landlord’s account that it had been in reasonable contact with the resident’s solicitor. Again, the evidence shows that on several occasions the landlord did not keep either the resident reasonably updated directly or through her representative. Therefore, its response that the delay was reasonable was inappropriate. In addition, that it did not acknowledge these failures through its complaints process is indicative of inadequate complaint handling. This meant that itmissed an opportunity to offer any remedy to put things right.
  10. Overall, the landlord failed to:
    1. demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s May and July 2023 requests to make a complaint.
    2. reasonably consider the resident’s complaint without intervention from this Service.
    3. demonstrate that it carried out an adequate review of the complaint at stage 2.
  11. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £500 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about her driveway.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. remind staff that to
      1. consider carrying out a risk assessment when residents’ raise health and safety concerns.
      2. to respond to residents’ requests to raise a complaint in a timely manner.