Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202116974)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116974

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

23 September 2022

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:
   1. response to a request to install a driveway to the front of the resident’s property;
   2. response to a request for a fence in the resident’s back garden;
   3. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow located on a scheme of 18 bungalows with communal front and back gardens.
3. The resident initially requested for the landlord to install a driveway at the property and to install a fence in its back garden in July 2018. In 2019, the landlord conducted a survey amongst the other residents which showed that 87% of residents who responded opposed allowing driveways to the communal grassed areas in the cul-de-sac. The survey also showed that half of the residents who responded to the survey objected. The landlord therefore declined the resident’s request as it would affect the other residents’ enjoyment of the communal areas.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 August 2021, where he complained that some other neighbours were granted permission to park in front of their property and to erect fencing in their back gardens, but he was not. In its stage one response issued on 30 September 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that the request to implement a driveway could not be granted because, as shown by the survey taken in 2019, it would have detrimental effects on the enjoyment of the communal areas by other neighbours. The landlord further clarified that alterations for other residents would also no longer be permitted due to a change of rules. Regarding the rear fence, the landlord invited the resident to submit a written request to install a fence in the back garden for it to consider.
5. The landlord, in its stage two response issued on 18 February 2022, apologised for its poor complaint handling as the resident was not explained his rights to escalate the complaint following the stage one response, and offered him compensation of £200 for time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The landlord also reiterated its position on the driveway but offered to discuss further the possibility of a small fence in his back garden, subject to the condition that it would not affect his neighbour’s access to communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s leasehold handbook states that in order to make alterations, leaseholders need written consent from the landlord, which will be subject to the condition that the leaseholder has provided details of the proposed works and subject to meeting planning permission, building regulation and or other statutory requirements. Examples of these improvements and alterations include: removing or altering fencing or external walls (including to create a parking space) and flagging a garden or yard in a communal area.
7. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. After receiving the stage one response, if the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they can escalate their complaint to stage two by contacting the stage one Complaint Manager and stating why they remain dissatisfied. The escalated complaint will be acknowledged within one working day of receipt. A response will be issued within twenty working days, unless further complex investigations are required.

Driveway

8. In 2018 the resident requested for the landlord to install a driveway as the existing parking was not in close proximity to his property. The landlord appropriately investigated the matter by surveying the surrounding neighbours, which resulted in 87% of neighbours who responded being opposed to driveways on the communal grassed areas as it would have a detrimental effect on the development.
9. The landlord is not obligated to grant permission for improvements. When receiving such a request, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to formally consider the request and carry out any reasonable steps to investigate the impact of the request. The landlord should then clearly communicate its decision and reasons to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord in this instance acted appropriately, in line with its policies and best practice, by carrying out a survey of other residents about the impact of the resident’s request. Based on this survey, its decision to decline the request was reasonable, as was its communication of its decision and reasoning to the resident.
10. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 August 2021, reiterating his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s refusal to build a driveway. The resident also complained that some neighbours previously had such alterations approved. In its stage one response, the landlord reiterated its position that it was unable to install a driveway given that, as shown by the survey, it would have detrimental effects on the other neighbours. The landlord further clarified to the resident that its alterations policy differed from the past due to a change in its management..
11. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appropriately reiterated its position and further clarified its change of policy, giving additional oversight to the resident as to why some neighbours were allowed to make similar alternations in the past. It must be noted that a landlord is permitted to revise and alter its policies, and the landlord, in this case, clearly gave its position and explained it to the resident. Furthermore, since the new policy had been amended, it applies to all residents going forward.
12. As part of its investigation, the landlord also visited the resident to further discuss and clarify the complaint, along with assessing the parking situation near the resident’s property. This was an appropriate level of investigation, in line with best practice, and given there was allocated spaces for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the parking spaces were sufficient and fit for the purpose.
13. The resident requested to escalate his complaint, clarifying that his request was no longer to install a driveway but, instead, to get permission to park in front of his property. The landlord issued its stage two response on 18 February 2022. The landlord, in its response, explained to the resident that it could not allow the resident to park his car in front of the property because, being that it was a communal area, it could affect other resident’s use of the communal area. The landlord further acknowledged that other neighbours were parking their cars using the communal spaces to the front of their homes and that it would investigate this matter further separately. Additionally, the landlord explained that, as assessed during its visit, there is sufficient communal parking within the proximity of the resident’s property, being as there were two parking spaces for each property in the development and signage displayed clearly stating that the parking spaces were for residents’ use only.
14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted appropriately by further investigating the resident’s case and assessing whether there were accessible parking spaces in close proximity. As noted above, the landlord is not obliged to carry out improvements, and the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to decline a request where it has carried out a reasonable investigation and has provided justifications for its decision.

Rear fence

15. The resident first made a request for a fence in his back garden in 2019. The landlord appropriately took a survey between neighbours to assess the impact of such a fence. The survey showed that a significant number of the residents who responded were opposed to the installation of a fence. Therefore, the landlord considered that adding fencing to the resident’s back garden would have a detrimental effect on the other neighbours’ enjoyment of the communal area, and declined the resident’s request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, as with above, the landlord acted appropriately by conducting a survey and its position on the fence was reasonable given the results of the survey.
16. Furthermore, the rear garden area is a communal area to which other leaseholders have access, and the landlord is responsible for maintaining it. The properties are adjacent, and the access for other residents could therefore be affected.
17. The resident, in his formal complaint, again raised concerns about the lack of privacy in the garden and requested permission to add fencing. It is not evident whether privacy concerns had been raised previously and so it was appropriate that the landlord reconsidered the request. In its stage one response, the landlord invited the resident to submit a request for alteration with a detailed plan for his request to be considered. The landlord acted appropriately by informing him of the process for it to consider permission, as per the leaseholder handbook, which specifies that to make an alteration to the resident’s property, an application must had been submitted.
18. In its stage two response, the landlord informed the resident that it would consider permission for the resident to install a “small” fence, subject to the condition that it would not be detrimental to other neighbours. The landlord requested that the resident submit a detailed plan with the measurements and location of the proposed fence. It was reasonable for the landlord to specify that the construction of the fence was subject to such conditions as the landlord is expected to consider the interests of all leaseholders.
19. The resident reported to this service that the landlord did not ultimately grant permission for the fence. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord attempted to provide the resident with a shorter fence to suit his needs; however, the resident requested a six-foot fence. It is evident the landlord raised with the neighbours the possibility of a fence of this size, however, they informed the landlord that a fence of those dimensions would be detrimental to their enjoyment of the communal area. The landlord clearly outlined in its stage two response that a fence needed to not cause detriment to other neighbours. The landlord conducted a fair investigation by enquiring the resident’s neighbours whether the fence would impact their use of the communal area. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to ultimately decline the resident’s request. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord outlined its willingness and flexibility to discuss the installation of a smaller fence or a retractable fence as previously suggested by the resident.

Complaint handling

20. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord, in its stage one response issued on 20 September 2021, did not provide the resident with the necessary information on the available options to escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied with the response. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide information in its stage one response about how to escalate to stage two.
21. Following this service’s intervention, the landlord appropriately attempted to put things right by apologising for its failure and offering £200 compensation for time and trouble in pursuing the matter. For complaints of this nature, the Housing Ombudsman Remedy Guidance states that £200 compensation is appropriate in such circumstances and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to a request to install a driveway to the front of the resident’s property.
23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to a request to fence the resident’s back garden.
24. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

25. The landlord to reiterate its offer of £200 compensation if this is yet to be accepted.
26. The landlord to communicate to all leaseholders to remind them of their responsibilities regarding parking in communal areas.