City of Doncaster Council (202519515)

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord to remove a raised flowerbed from his neighbour’s front garden. This was to enable him to manoeuvre his mobility scooter along a joint path and turn into an alleyway to store it in his back garden. It approached the neighbour who refused to have it removed. He complained when it declined his request.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for the neighbour’s raised flowerbed to be removed.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for the neighbour’s raised flowerbed to be removed.
   2. Complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found:

Request for the neighbour’s raised flowerbed to be removed

4. The landlord gave due consideration to the resident’s request. It inspected the site and consulted the neighbour. It sought and took appropriate legal advice. It considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.  It offered alternative solutions.

Complaint

5. The landlord followed its complaint handling policy when dealing with the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident said he wanted to buy a larger mobility scooter with a longer distance range and store it in his back garden. He complained about the landlord’s earlier decision not to remove the neighbour’s raised flowerbed and a fence panel at the front of the property. He said these would prevent him turning a larger scooter on the path to reach the alleyway leading to his garden.
7. The resident’s request did not relate to a standard welfare adaptation because it involved changes to a neighbour’s property rather than his own. As the request required physical alterations to the neighbour’s garden, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider a wider range of factors before deciding how to proceed.
8. In an earlier request on the same issue, the landlord confirmed that it had not installed the neighbour’s raised flowerbed. It noted that the flowerbed had been in place for many years, before both the resident and the neighbour moved in. It said it asked the neighbour to agree to its removal, but she declined because the flowerbed held sentimental value.
9. After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged an onsite meeting with the neighbour’s representative and the resident. The meeting ended before an agreed way forward could be reached. As the neighbour refused permission to remove the flowerbed, it concluded it was unable to take further action.
10. On receipt of the resident’s escalation request, the landlord sent a surveyor to visit the site. The surveyor discussed the issue with him and took measurements and photographs. Themeasurements showed that even if the flowerbed were removed, access through the alleyway on a larger mobility scooter would be difficult. This was due to alterationshe hadmade to hispropertywhich had reduced the size of the alleyway. This includedgarden edging stones, the installation of a front gate, and a rear gate and fence.
11. As the complaint related to a mobility aid, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider whether anyone in the household had a disability. This was relevant to whether it had any duties to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality act 2010. This applies when a provision, criterion, or practice places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, to someone who is not disabled, in a relevant matter.
12. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the equality act, only the courts can determine this. We can, however, decide whether if it has had due regard to its duties.
13. In its final response, the landlord said it had confirmed that it did not have obligations under the equality act. This was because no household members were registered disabled and there were no outstanding requests for an assessment with occupational health.
14. Under the equality act a person is disabled if they have a “physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long‑term effect on their day‑to‑day activities”.Being “registered disabled” is not a requirement. The landlord maywant to review whether it has applied the correct test. That said, it has shown that it gave due regard to its responsibilities.
15. The landlord stated that if equality act duties applied, this would only require it to consider reasonable adjustments to address the issue.Its records show that it discussed alternative options with the resident which he rejected.These included a ramp to the front door to enable him to take the scooter through his home or providing scooter storage at the front of the property.This demonstrates it explored alternative solutions. However, it did not include details of thesediscussions in its complaint responses, which was a shortcoming.
16. The landlord explained that it sought legal advice which concluded that, without a disability that might trigger duties under the equality act, it would be difficult for it to enforce the removal of the flowerbed. The advice also noted that enforcement action could interfere with the neighbour’s right to quiet enjoyment of theirhome.
17. In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s request, its duty under the Equality Act, and explored alternative options to resolve the issue. It was also reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of its legal advisors.

18. The landlord’s complaint handling policy commits to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If it requires an extension on the time to respond, this should not exceed 20 working days. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code)
19. The resident complained on 4 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 11 July 2025 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2025. This met its policy response times of 5 and 10 working days respectively.
20. The resident requested a review of the complaint decision on 1 August 2025. It acknowledged his request within 5 working days as its policy requires. It sent its final response on 15 August 2025, which was 10 working days ahead of its 20-working day policy response time.

Learning

21. The landlord would benefit from ensuring it sets out all the actions taken and considered in its complaint responses.
22. The landlord considered other options to assist the resident even without confirmed responsibilities under the equality act. This showed good practice.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. Our investigation found no record keeping issues

Communication

24. Our investigation found no communication issues.