Kingston upon Hull City Council (202120796)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120796

Kingston upon Hull City Council

18 May 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 response to the resident’s report of a repair needed to the driveway.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a mid-terrace house with a driveway.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord that its contractor had attended for a driveway repair in 2021 and had not notified the resident that they were there. The resident also thought the contractor had been unprofessional.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord said its contractor’s recollection of events differed to the resident, but it apologised if the resident felt he had received a poor service. In respect of the driveway repair, the landlord said the concreting to the side of the driveway had not been done by its contractors, and so it was not responsible for the repair.
  4. The resident stated that the landlord had carried out the original work to the driveway but is denying this and refused to carry out the repair when it had failed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement explains that the resident must not make any alteration or addition to the premises without written consent from the landlord.
  2. The landlord has referred to a photo of the property taken in 2019. According to the landlord this shows the original placement of the fence and later photos taken in 2022 show that the fence (and the end section of a front wall) had been moved, so the driveway could be bigger.
  3. The landlord maintained that photos taken in 2022 show two additions to the side of the original driveway. It stated that the first addition appeared to be in a similar style to the original driveway, in that it has been concreted over. The second addition showed paving in the style of ‘stepping stones’. The landlord’s contractor who attended the property in 2021 said the concrete on the driveway was cracking/crumbling. It is therefore assumed that the repair is needed to the first addition (the concreted section).
  4. The landlord denies concreting this section of the driveway. Its contractor who attended in 2021 said they thought the concreting to the side of the driveway had been done by other people, as the wall had been removed and the tarmac had no pin kerb, so they said a wall must have been there.
  5. According to the surveyor’s assessment of the photograph, a fence (and part of a wall) has been moved at some point since the 2019 photo was taken. This alteration is not reflected in any of the landlord’s repair jobs for the property, so it would seem that the resident has arranged this rather than the landlord. However, based on the photos provided, it appears that this alteration to the property was to allow the ‘stepping stones’ paving to be installed. The conclusion is also that the first addition (the concreted section) does not seem to have been impacted by the movement of the fence and removal of a section of wall.
  6. The landlord has provided its previous repair jobs for the property. In March 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the property as the resident had complained about potholes in the driveway. The contractor noted at this time that there was two metres of topsoil near to the fence. The landlord’s contractor revisited in September 2020 and said there was a strip that was not concreted alongside the driveway which the resident was tripping over when getting into and out of his car. The contractor described that section as being around five metres by 40 centimetres. The job notes explain that a groundworker would dig out the soil and lay two square metres of concrete with a ‘float finish’. This was completed on 5 November 2020.
  7. Based on the photos taken in 2022, it would appear that the measurements described above roughly match the first addition (concreted section) to the original driveway. It therefore seems that this work was indeed carried out by the landlord, rather than the resident.
  8. Having said that, it is appreciated that the fence and front section of wall were likely in their original positions at that time, which would explain why the tarmac had no pin kerb. If the resident’s decision to move the fence and wall caused the concreting to fail, then, as this was apparently done without the landlord’s consent, it would not be appropriate to expect the landlord to put this right.
  9. Though if the landlord had not wrongly stated that it had not concreted the first addition to the driveway, then the matter could have been looked into much sooner. The resident has been caused unnecessary inconvenience because of this. The landlord had the opportunity to investigate this further when considering the resident’s complaint, but instead chose not to consider the matter further and did not issue a stage two complaint response.
  10. While the resident’s original complaint did not specify issues with whether the actual works were carried out, the landlord did address this in its decision on the complaint. It would, therefore, have been reasonable for it to provide more detailed information on the works, based on a more thorough consideration of the events. It may mean that the landlord would not be responsible for the repairs, if the evidence shows that the resident’s action is the cause of the issues. However, it would likely have resulted in accuracy with respect to the works it had previously undertaken.
  11. Overall, this Service concludes that, although the landlord provided an adequate response to the matter of the resident’s report of the conduct of the operative, it failed to properly address the issue of the works to the driveway. It, therefore, remains unclear who is responsible for the repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a repair needed to the driveway.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to acknowledge that it had carried out the previous concrete addition to the driveway.
    2. Contact its surveyor to arrange an inspection of the driveway, for the purpose of establishing whether the movement of the fence and end section of wall had likely caused the concreting to fail. If so, then the landlord is not required to carry out any further repair. Though if the movement of the fence and wall is not thought to have made any difference to the failure of the concrete, then the landlord should arrange for this to be repaired in line with its usual repair timescales. 
    3. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders in this report.