Gentoo Group Limited (202233149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233149

Gentoo Group Limited

31 March 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 reports that the previous landlord had given her consent to install a driveway.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property was transferred from the ownership of the local authority landlord to the current housing association landlord over 20 years ago.
3. In January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to notify her of its cyclical improvement work programme beginning in April 2023. It said that the scheme aimed to restore homes to their original designs, where unauthorised external alterations had been made. The letter said that the resident’s driveway appeared to have been installed without consent from the local authority’s Highway Department because vehicle access to the driveway crossed over the raised pedestrian pavement. The landlord said that if the resident wished to keep the driveway, she must apply for retrospective permission from the local authority, which would take the necessary steps to drop the kerb.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 18 January 2022, saying that when her tenancy began in 2002, the local authority, which was her landlord at that time, permitted her to install the driveway. She said she did not have the finances to do what the landlord was asking. She explained that the driveway was essential for her son, who had autism and would likely feel isolated if the driveway was removed.
5. In its responses, the landlord repeated its explanation that to retain the driveway, the resident must obtain retrospective consent from the local authority, which would then take the necessary work to ensure the driveway complied with regulations. Alternatively, it said it would have to reconstruct the original brick fence, which would block the driveway.
6. On 16 March 2023, the landlord met the resident and social services. It said that in recognition of her son’s needs, it would apply for consent on her behalf. When the cost was finalised, it would agree on an affordable repayment plan with her.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Service a week later, on 21 March 2023, dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. The consent, in retrospect, and the associated works were completed on 24 June 2024. She told us in March 2025 that she had yet to agree on a payment plan with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

8. The basis of the resident’s complaint was that she had been given permission in 2002 by the previous landlord, the council, to create the driveway. It is understandable that, given the time that had passed, she did not have anycorresponding evidence. It is also understandable that her presentlandlord did not have these records, as it was not the landlord at that time. Despite that, thelandlord’s positionremained that the resident needed to obtain consent from the council for the driveway if she wished to continue using it, and part of that consent would involve dropping the kerb. No evidence has been seen suggesting the landlord’s request and explanations were inaccurate or wrong.
9.  The resident included in her complaint that she could not afford to take the steps it was asking for. The landlord continued to liaise with her and sought to find a solution that was mutually agreeable. It met the resident in October and November 2022 and in January and March 2023 to discuss funding for the work. It successfully secured a grant of £500 through its engagement with the local authority. It agreed to cover the cost of the consent so that the necessary work could commence. It stated that once the council confirmed the total costs, it would establish a payment plan with the resident for an amount she could manage each month.
10.  Overall, there is no evidence of service failure on the part of the landlord. It offered the resident a range of options and provided the time, information, and opportunity to apply for consent retrospectively. It worked with the resident to find solutions, recognising the needs of the resident and her son. The evidence shows the landlord treated the resident fairly and acted reasonably.

Determination

11.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regard to the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports that the previous landlord had given her consent to install a driveway.