Leicester City Council (202319673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319673

Leicester City Council

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 31 July 2017. The landlord has not confirmed whether it holds any information relating to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The property is a 2 bedroom cottage at the end of a terrace of 4 similar properties. There is a communal open plan garden at the front. The landlord owns all of the properties therefore there are no individual boundaries marked on the open space. The resident has use of a hardstanding to the side of his property. It was originally installed as a disabled adaptation for a previous resident.
On 20 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that his neighbour was parking right outside his front door. He said other residents were also not parking where they should. In February the landlord said it would investigate the issue but as it was working under its Business Continuity Plan (BCP) it would not be straight away.
During March 2023 the landlord carried out a site visit and identified that at least 2 unauthorised hard standings had been created on the open plan frontage.
The resident continued to report that his neighbour’s parking was causing a nuisance because he had screwed a wooden bar to the ground to prevent the vehicle going too far back towards his front door.
On 7 August 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord to say he had met with his housing officer on 17 February 2023 to discuss the parking but had not heard back.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 14 August 2023. It said it had tried to call the resident on 9 August but had been unable to speak to him and was unable to leave a voicemail. It gave the number of his housing officer for him to call them. It said that at the time of the visit the housing officer had advised it was working to BCP therefore its response would take time. However, it said it would work with the housing officer to resolve the matter.
On 25 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that he had tried to contact his housing officer without success. He was dissatisfied with the delay and said the problem was affecting his wellbeing and his job performance. He also reported that his front door had turned into a “car workshop.” The landlord contacted the neighbour about the issue on 13 September 2023.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it had not responded in a timely manner for which it apologised.
2. Its housing officer would be in touch with the resident.
3. The land was communal housing land therefore it could not designate parking. However, it could ensure residents did not cause a nuisance to each other.
4. The resident would need to provide a signed witness statement and provide evidence of the inconvenience for it to be able to take enforcement action.
5. It partially upheld the complaint because while it acted on the reports it did not communicate effectively with the resident nor did it explain its findings in a timely manner for which it apologised.

Events post internal complaints process

On 14 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour to advise they had breached the terms of their tenancy agreement by installing a hardstanding. It pointed out that parking so close to the property was making access difficult. It asked them to rectify the issue within 7 days.
On 1 November 2023 the resident contacted this Service. His housing officer had advised that residents were not allowed to alter the communal space but was not enforcing this. The timber screwed into the ground by his neighbour remained in situ.
In an email to us dated 6 March 2025 the landlord confirmed that its technical team inspected on 27 June 2024. The housing team confirmed that permission would not have been granted for the driveway on communal land and it was left with the housing team to action.
It also confirmed that it would shortly be writing to both parties to suggest they swap spaces. This would mean the resident used the hardstanding in front of his door and his neighbour used the one installed to the side of his property.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy says that it will contact residents reporting vehicle nuisance and parking disputes within 3 working days and provide an overall response within 28 days.
Its Conditions of Tenancy state that:
1. If your home is on an open-plan estate the front, side and rear areas must remain the way the landlord has laid them out.
2. You, or any person living with you or visiting your home, must not use any equipment or item in a communal area (shared garden, shared courtyard or other shared space) which causes, or is likely to cause a nuisance or obstruction to any other resident.
Its BCP dated 11 November 2022 stated that due to staff shortages it was prioritising elements of the tenancy management role and suspended others until it was in a more “comfortable position.” It confirmed it would not process or deal with car hard standings which would be picked up during a “quieter time.” It said it would “continue to review workload and pressure continuously and hopefully in the coming months.”

Scope of the investigation

It is noted that the resident reported issues with parking in 2018. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that they have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking

On 20 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that his neighbour was parking in front of his front door. He was concerned about what the neighbour might do if the landlord contacted him. However, given there was a wider issue with parking at the properties he hoped the landlord could deal with it on that basis.
The landlord did not respond which was inappropriate because it failed to respond in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, it caused the resident inconvenience when he emailed the landlord again on 30 January 2023 to chase.
The evidence shows the landlord tried to call the resident on 31 January 2023. The resident and landlord subsequently exchanged a number of emails which resulted in a meeting being arranged at the landlord’s offices at the request of the resident.
During the meeting on 17 February 2023 the landlord said it would investigate but that because it was working under BCP it might not be straight away. It was appropriate that the landlord managed the expectations regarding timescales.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a site visit on or around 16 March 2023. It noted that at least 2 properties appeared to have installed hard standings without permission so it would investigate further.
It was positive that the landlord began its investigation. However, there is no evidence that it progressed the matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it provided any further updates to the resident which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s inaction caused distress and further inconvenience to the resident. He made a formal complaint on 7 August 2023 in order to seek a resolution.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 August 2023 set out its attempt to call the resident on 9 August. It appropriately provided the contact number for the housing officer. It referred to the discussion in February and the fact it was working to BCP which may cause a delay. However, this did not account for its inaction between February and August 2023 which was a delay of 6 months. It also failed to acknowledge the delay was compounded by its lack of communication with the resident during that time.
In the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 25 August 2023 he acknowledged that due to the nature of his job, it could be difficult for people to contact him by phone. However, he was unhappy that the vehicle was still in situ. Furthermore, the situation had got worse because car repairs had recently been carried out.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. A positive complaint handling culture means a landlord should “pay compensation in cases where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact”.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 September 2023 apologised for the delay and partially upheld the complaint. While it was positive that it acknowledged its failures, its apology did not go far enough to put things right.
It also said that the resident would need to provide a signed witness statement and provide evidence of inconvenience for it to be able to take action. On 20 January 2023 the resident expressed concerns about repercussions from his neighbour. Furthermore, the landlord had carried out a site inspection. It had seen for itself the inconvenience caused and breach of tenancy committed by the neighbour installing a hardstanding without consent.
Therefore, it was inappropriate to cause further distress and inconvenience to the resident by requesting a signed witness statement. The resident’s frustration was evident in his email to the landlord of 11 September 2023 where he queried if residents were allowed to make alterations to communal areas without permission.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 14 September 2023 to request that they reinstate the area to its original condition within 7 days. This was 9 months after it was put on notice and the delay was unreasonable. By June 2024 the hardstanding was still in situ. It is unclear if the breach of tenancy has now been resolved.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Set out its response to the breach of tenancy caused by his neighbour altering communal land if this has not already been resolved.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
3. Contact the resident to find out if the parking nuisance has stopped. If not, it should write to set out an action plan.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.