Longhurst Group Limited (202302371)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302371

Longhurst Group Limited

12 April 2024

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 request for permission to install a driveway at her property.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has a stoma bag. She has advised she is unable to carry more than 5kg in weight. The landlord had no disabilities recorded on file for the resident.
3. On 17 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask what she needed to do to get permission to turn her front garden into a driveway. The landlord advised the resident she needed to submit a permission request online which the resident did.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 June 2022 as she had not received a response to her online permission request to turn her front garden into a driveway. The landlord advised the resident she would need to forward a letter from the local council giving permission for a dropped kerb before it could make a decision regarding her request. She did not want to pay £268 to apply to the local council for permission for the dropped kerb if the landlord did not think a driveway at her property was feasible.
5. On 11 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was unable to give permission for the driveway due to the position of the property. Over the next two months the resident contacted the landlord several times to try to discuss the refusal to give permission. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 15 September 2022 reiterating it was unable to give permission due to the location of the property. It also referenced the resident’s property shared a footpath with a neighbouring property. On receipt of the landlord’s letter the resident contacted the landlord as she stated some of the information in the landlord’s letter was incorrect. The resident said her property did not share a footpath with her neighbour.
6. On 22 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had a proposal of a joint driveway with her neighbour and asked the landlord to consider a joint driveway request. The resident requested a telephone conversation with the landlord, but the landlord declined this until it had all the information to hand. It advised the resident that this was a major alteration, and that it could not commit to this without all things being considered.
7. The resident submitted another permission request on 28 November 2022. The landlord replied stating that it could still not grant permission for a driveway at her property. After further communication from the resident, the landlord sought advice which meant it maintained its position on the matter. On 1 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it was unable to grant permission for the driveway after consulting the highways department. The landlord also stated it would not change the deeds of the properties as it would have a long-term legal implication for both properties. On 6 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she wanted to appeal the decision to decline permission for a driveway at her property. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 12 April 2023 reiterating the reason it declined the request and directed the resident to the highways department at the local council.
8. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord by telephone on 19 April 2023. The resident said she felt she was being discriminated against due to not being granted permission for a driveway and was going to contact this Service. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 20 April 2023 which stated it declined to formally investigate the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It stated the highways department at the local council had not given permission and the landlord was unable to accept a complaint regarding the decision of an unrelated organisation. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s continued refusal. In resolution of her complaint, the resident is seeking a meeting with the landlord and the local council to look at her plans and approve her request for a driveway.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states “Customers are able to apply for permission to alter their homes via the Group’s website. Permission requests will be reviewed and considered by the Assets and Property Services Team and a Repairs Surveyor will visit the property if required”.
10. The landlord’s complaints policy states the policy scope which “applies to “complaints made by any customer, or their representative, and anyone affected by a service we provide, including services provided on our behalf by a contractor”. The policy also states, “There are circumstances in which a matter will not be considered to be a complaint” and “If we do not accept a complaint, a detailed explanation will be provided setting out the reason why the matter is not suitable for complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Housing Ombudsman”.
11. The evidence showed the landlord appropriately followed its processes in line with its repairs policy when dealing with the resident’s permission requests to install a driveway at her property. Two of the landlord’s staff attended the property on different occasions. While the staff did not speak to the resident when they visited which frustrated her, the evidence confirmed the landlord did visit the property and did not just rely on internet images of the area.
12. The decision on whether an alteration is deemed viable and whether it will or will not be accepted is ultimately down to the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide fair and rational reasoning for declining an alteration request. This Service has seen evidence it did this by leaning on the expertise of its surveyors. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have taken a customer-focused approach and provided the resident an opportunity to discuss her plans to demonstrate it had taken her points on board. However, there was no requirement for the landlord to do this. The landlord was entitled to make the decision independently.
13. On 20 July 2022 the resident was advised by the landlord she could appeal the decision. However, the evidence does not show that she was provided with the information on how to do this. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should have provided the resident with the appeals process. This would have been resolution-focused, and a fair and reasonable action to take.
14. The landlord acted reasonably when it investigated the feasibility of the resident’s permission requests. The landlord visited the property on several occasions. It reviewed the resident’s request when she was dissatisfied with the original decision. When the resident suggested a shared driveway with her neighbour the landlord approached the highways department at the local council on 10 January 2023 and 1 February 2023 for advice about the resident’s proposal. The landlord was unable to grant the permission the resident wanted when the highways department advised it would not be able to permit a dropped kerb at the resident’s property as the access was too narrow.
15. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident. It referred the resident to the highways department at the local council on several occasions and provided a named contact in that department. The landlord also stated on 28 November 2022 that should the resident have medical needs it could arrange an assessment with its independent living team or put her in touch with the local authority occupational therapy team.
16. The landlord did not return some of the resident’s calls which was unreasonable and caused frustration for the resident. On 19 July 2022 when the resident received the first letter declining permission for the driveway, she rang the landlord. The resident requested to speak to the surveyor to understand the decision. This was a reasonable and fair request. However, the landlord emailed the resident on 20 July 2022 stating it would not speak to her about the decision. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been more accommodating of the landlord to have welcomed a meeting with the resident, and provided the opportunity to explain why the decision would not be overturned. This would have been a more customer-focused approach and would have likely prevented the continuous contact from the resident.
17. The landlord’s decision on 20 April 2023 to not formally investigate the resident’s complaint was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The policy applies to “complaints made by any customer, or their representative, and anyone affected by a service we provide, including services provided on our behalf by a contractor”. The final decision to refuse the resident’s request was due to the highways department at the local council not granting permission for the resident’s property to have a dropped kerb because the access was too narrow. Therefore, the landlord was unable to overturn its decision to not grant permission for a driveway as the decision about permission for dropped kerbs was the responsibility of the local council. This had previously been explained to the resident and she had been told in a letter from the landlord dated 12 April 2023 to “please direct any further queries to Highways”. The landlord had repeatedly advised the resident it could not consider the permission requests until the resident provided a letter from the local council stating permission for a dropped kerb had been given.
18. The content of the landlord’s final response in which it declined to formally investigate the resident’s complaint was also in line with its complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy states “If we do not accept a complaint, a detailed explanation will be provided setting out the reason why the matter is not suitable for complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Housing Ombudsman”. The landlord provided the reason why it would not investigate the resident’s complaint. It also provided the details of this Service so the resident could escalate her complaint if she wanted.
19. While the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s complaint, it missed opportunities to provide the resident with details of its internal complaints process when she expressed dissatisfaction earlier. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states “The resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such”. On 9 September 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction at not receiving any call backs which she stated had been going on over 5 weeks. It would have been appropriate and in line with the Code for the landlord to have offered the resident the opportunity of having this issue dealt with as a complaint. This would have accelerated the process for the resident and given her a clearer, more formal pathway to have her concerns addressed.
20. Despite the resident stating she had a disability; it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was nothing further the landlord could do to be able to grant the resident’s permission request. It had sought advice and it had appropriately signposted the resident. The landlord had acknowledged the health information that the resident had stated and offered to put her in contact with the relevant support services.
21. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a driveway at her property.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for permission to install a driveway at her property.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should consider introducing its internal complaints process at an earlier stage when a resident is expressing dissatisfaction with its services or decisions. This is to ensure the landlord is operating in line with the new 2024 Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states “A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint”.