Northumberland Council (202116250)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116250

Northumberland Council

8 June 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision to install a hard standing area for parking alongside a neighbouring property.

Background

2. The resident has lived in his property since 2010 on a secure tenancy. The property is a bungalow in an area of older person’s housing.
3. The landlord has implemented a scheme to provide as much off-road parking as possible in the area. The landlord’s stated wider aim is to benefit tenants and improve road safety.
4. The resident believes that the proposed position of the neighbour’s parking space will result in a loss of privacy as anyone using the parking space will have a direct line of sight into his bedroom. The resident says that this violates his human rights.
5. The resident also believes that the landlord’s stance that the works will improve road safety are unsubstantiated and therefore the work is unnecessary. In addition, he has proposed an alternative solution to resolve the off-road parking issue for the neighbour.
6. The landlord has confirmed that the proposed works to install the neighbour’s parking space were scheduled to complete during 2021, but that it removed the property from its works programme following the resident’s complaint and its understanding that the Ombudsman had been approached. It is understood that the works will proceed following the completion of the Ombudsman’s investigation, unless the findings of this investigation entail that the works ought not go ahead.

Assessment and findings

7. In terms of road safety, the resident disputes that there is any current problem that needs solving. He says that he has never heard of any road related incidents outside of his neighbour’s property. In response to this, the landlord has explained that it is talking about improving road safety in the broadest sense and that it has taken a pro-active approach to reduce future accidents across a number of its estates. The Ombudsman finds nothing wrong in the landlord exercising its professional opinion to anticipate future road safety issues and to remove as many parked cars from the roadside as possible. 
8. Another of the landlord’s aims is to benefit tenants by improving accessibility to and from their houses to their cars, particularly important within the scheme due to the age of residents and associated mobility issues experienced by some. The resident had his own hard standing installed a number of years ago and so would clearly understand the benefit that would be afforded to other tenants if they too had off road parking. The Ombudsman has seen correspondence relating to a nearby tenant who has disabilities and who was having difficulties parking on the road, and it is these sorts of problems that the landlord is also hoping to alleviate with its improvement plans.
9. The Ombudsman doubts that the resident objects to the scheme in its entirety. However he has raised specific concerns about the proposed location of the neighbour’s parking space as it would mean that the resident’s bedroom window would, in his opinion, be overlooked by any user of the proposed parking space. The resident has provided helpful details with photos that include relevant dimensions and distances. He says that the edge of the hard standing would be 34 feet from his bedroom window.
10. The neighbouring property already has a layby outside it which the resident says is suitable for two cars. However, the landlord says that, whilst it is long enough, it is not wide enough for two cars. Its plan was that this layby would be used by the tenant on the other side of the neighbour (because there is no possibility of off-street parking at that property) and that the neighbour is provided with a hard standing area adjacent to their property.
11. The resident has been in contact with the police to ask if it is lawful for a car to park partly on the footpath and partly on the road. The police said that it would only get involved if someone in a wheelchair or with a pram etc could not use the pavement, causing them to walk on the road. The resident has concluded from this that it is possible for two cars to be parked in the layby outside the neighbour’s house. Based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s assessment that the layby is not wide enough for two cars is correct, as it is not possible without impeding on the pavement. As such, it is reasonable that the landlord has identified a location for hard-standing at the neighbour’s property which would avoid the need to park awkwardly and that would leave the pavement clear for other users.
12. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord has said that the proposed parking space is a sufficient distance from the resident’s bedroom window and so will not affect his privacy. Furthermore, the neighbour’s usage of the parking space is not going to be so frequent as to cause a nuisance. This demonstrates that the landlord has given serious consideration to the resident’s concerns.
13. The resident has cited the Human Rights Act and the landlord’s lack of knowledge in relation to the Act. The Housing Ombudsman is an informal dispute resolution service and does not have the authority or expertise to determine whether a member landlord has acted contrary to the Human Rights Act. This investigation has considered the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s complaint, including whether it has behaved reasonably and responsibly in the circumstances and acted in accordance with its policies and procedures.
14. In this case, it is clear that the landlord has looked at making improvements that will benefit its tenants. In doing so it has factored in a number of issues, such as a new estate being built nearby which will likely increase road usage in the area. It has also thought about the profile of its tenants, many of whom are elderly and/or disabled.
15. The impact on the resident has also been considered and weighed up against the overall benefits of the scheme. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident feels very strongly that he will suffer a severe loss of privacy. However, based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the hard standing area will not significantly intrude on the resident’s privacy. However, should the resident remain dissatisfied, he may wish to challenge the landlord’s decision through the courts.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its decision to install a hard standing area for parking alongside a neighbouring property.