South Tyneside Council (202127386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127386

South Tyneside Homes

16 March 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reinstate the driveway at the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a dispute about the boundary line between the resident’s property and a neighbour’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. Her tenancy started on 13 October 2014. She moved into the property through the landlord’s mutual exchange procedure. The property is a two-bedroom house and is managed by the landlord on behalf of the local authority.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure says that:
1. A mutual exchange is when one tenant swaps their home permanently with another tenant.
2. When a tenant moves into their new property, they agree to accept it as seen.
3. To complete a mutual exchange, a tenant will sign an acceptance of condition of property form. By signing this form, the tenant agrees to accept the property in its current condition.
The landlord’s improvements and alterations policy says that:
1. If you are a secure tenant, you have a right to carry out improvements to your home.
2. Tenants must have written permission from the landlord before carrying out any work.
3. If a tenant would like to carry out improvements to their property, they must complete an application for alterations form.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that:
1. Its repairs service needs to focus on value for money. It must ensure that available resources are used as effectively and efficiently as possible in maintaining homes to the highest possible standard.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. If it is not possible to respond to the complainant within these timescales, the landlord will contact the resident to explain why and agree a new response date.

Summary of events

On 10 October 2014, the resident completed the landlord’s mutual exchange acceptance of condition of property form. The form says that the resident agreed to accept the property in its current condition.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2021 to ask if it would remove a wall in her garden, so that she could park her car in the garden.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 29 July 2021. It said that it would not remove the wall as it was structurally sound. It also said that it would not be able to reinstate the driveway in the resident’s garden. It informed the resident that she could request permission from the landlord to remove the wall and reinstate the driveway herself. The landlord sent the resident an alterations request form in case she wanted to ask for permission to carry out the work herself.
In August and September 2021, the resident and the landlord made unsuccessful attempts to contact each other to further discuss her request for the driveway to be reinstated.
The landlord spoke to the resident on the phone on 29 September 2021. It explained that:
1. It would not be able to reinstate the driveway or remove the garden wall.
2. The resident could request permission to carry out the work herself. This would need to be approved by the landlord.
3. It was aware that there are other residents in the area who also do not have access to their own car parking space.
During the phone call on 29 September 2021, the resident said that she thought the boundary line between her property and her neighbour’s property had been changed. She asked the landlord to check the position of the boundary line.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property. The surveyor measured the boundary line and told the resident that the “boundary is almost in the correct place”. The surveyor also said that it was “only out a tiny bit”. The surveyor compared the resident’s boundary line with other properties on the street and showed her building plans of the property. The surveyor told the resident that the landlord would not be able to reinstate the driveway. She could request permission to reinstate the driveway herself. The surveyor did agree with the resident that there had once been a shared driveway at the property. However, in the past the driveway had been bricked up, a fence had been installed between the two gardens and the driveway had been replaced with grass.
On 23 December 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. She would like the landlord to reinstate the driveway.
2. She currently has to park her car on the street. Her car has been damaged when it has been parked on the street. She said that the street is very narrow.
3. She was unhappy with the landlord’s decision about the boundary line.
4. The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint on 18 January 2022.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response letter on 18 January 2022. The landlord said that:
1. It had investigated the resident’s report that the boundary line had been changed. The landlord’s surveyor had measured the boundary line and it had also obtained advice from the local authority’s Land Ownership Technician. After reviewing this evidence, the landlord concluded that there had been no significant change to the boundary line.
2. It would not be able to reinstate the resident’s driveway.
3. It would contact the resident’s local councillor to see if they could look into wider issues with parking in the local area. The local authority may be able to consider issues with parking as part of future area improvements.
4. It was sorry if the resident was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.
5. The resident could escalate the complaint with the landlord if she was unhappy with its response.
In an internal email sent on 18 January 2022, the landlord’s surveyor said that the boundary line between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property was only about “0.2 metres out”.
On 26 January 2022, the local authority’s Senior Land Ownership Technician stated that they could not find any evidence that the boundary between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property had been changed significantly.
On 31 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She asked the landlord to review its stage one complaint response.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by phone to discuss the complaint. The resident said that because she has to park her car on the road, it has been damaged on a number of occasions. She also said that the bin lorry often struggles to drive up her road because of the cars that are parked along it. She again asked the landlord to reinstate the driveway.
The landlord sent the resident a stage two complaint response letter on 9 March 2022. It said that:
1. It had carried out further investigations into the resident’s boundary dispute. It had discussed the dispute with the local authority’s legal team and again with the Senior Land Ownership Technician. It had also looked at boundary maps and aerial photos of the property.
2. The landlord again concluded that there had only been a minor change to the boundary line between the resident’s property and her neighbour’s property.
3. Aerial photos of the property show that there had been a driveway in the garden at the property in the past.
4. The local authority was unable to find out any information about when the kerb in front of the property was lowered. This was because the work was carried out too long ago.
5. The resident moved into the property through the mutual exchange procedure. As a result, she agreed to accept the property as it was when the mutual exchange was completed.
6. It understands that there are problems with parking in the local area. If the resident wanted to reinstate the driveway, she could request permission from the landlord to carry out the work herself. If she did this, she would have to pay for the work.
7. If the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, she could contact this Service.
A file note made by the landlord on 3 August 2022 said that it had contacted the local authority to ask it to look into the problems with parking in the local area. The landlord hoped that the local authority may be able to use its Community Action Fund to pay for parking improvements.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reinstate the driveway at the property

The resident informed the landlord that as she does not have a driveway, she has to park her car on the road outside the property. As the road is narrow, she said that her car has been damaged on a number of occasions. The resident has informed this Service that she has found it difficult to afford to pay for the cost of repairing her car when it has been damaged. The Ombudsman therefore recognises that having a driveway reinstated at the property would be beneficial for the resident.
The resident asked the landlord to consider reinstating the driveway in June 2021. The landlord informed her in July 2021 that it would not be able to reinstate the driveway. The landlord gave the resident a timely response to her request to reinstate the driveway. The landlord maintained its position that it would not be able to reinstate the driveway throughout the resident’s complaint. It demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns and it provided her with a detailed explanation for its decision. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s decision was explained to the resident in person, over the phone and in writing. This helped the landlord to explain its decision to the resident clearly and effectively. It also demonstrates that the landlord wanted to make sure that the resident understood why it was not able to reinstate the driveway.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says that when completing a mutual exchange, residents accept a property “as seen”. In its complaint response letters, the landlord advised the resident that she had accepted the property without a driveway when she completed the mutual exchange. Therefore, the landlord would not be able to reinstate the driveway. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it would not be able to reinstate the driveway because she had accepted the property as it was when she completed the mutual exchange. The resident had an opportunity to accept or refuse to go ahead with the mutual exchange after she had viewed the property. She was aware that there was no driveway at the property when she agreed to complete the mutual exchange.
The landlord told the resident that she could request permission to reinstate the driveway herself. Information about the landlord’s alterations policy was given to the resident in person, over the phone and in writing. The landlord provided the resident with opportunities to ask it questions about its alterations policy and find out how she could request permission to reinstate the driveway herself. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this demonstrates good practice by the landlord as it shows that it tried to help the resident find an alternative way to reinstate the driveway after it had advised her that it would not be able to do so.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it needs to make best use of its limited resources. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord must consider carefully how it uses the resources that it has available to it when it responds to requests from its residents. Reinstating the driveway at the resident’s property would be an improvement, not an essential repair. The landlord has no legal obligation to undertake improvements such as the installation of a driveway. In the Ombudsman’s view, the decision to not reinstate the resident’s driveway was reasonable as the landlord must consider how it uses its resources carefully. It is therefore only able to commit to completing essential repairs to its properties.
The landlord provided the resident with contact information for the local authority so that she could highlight the problems with parking in the area. The landlord also contacted the local authority to highlight the resident’s parking problems. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows that although the landlord made the decision to not reinstate the driveway at the property, it tried to help the resident find additional alternative ways to deal with the parking problems in the area.
In the view of the Ombudsman, the landlord’s decision to not install a driveway was reasonable. To make its decision, the landlord considered its responsibilities according to its mutual exchange policy and its repairs policy. The landlord explained why it made its decision to the resident and highlighted these policies when doing so. The landlord also informed the resident about its decision quickly and communicated it to her effectively. By explaining its decision in person and on the phone, it gave the resident an opportunity to discuss the decision in more detail. The landlord’s decision was understandably very frustrating and upsetting for the resident. She had informed the landlord that her car had been damaged when it has been parked on the road. The landlord was sympathetic about this and it apologised to the resident if she was not happy about its decision.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a dispute about the boundary line between the resident’s property and a neighbour’s property

It is not within the expertise of this Service to make a finding about where the boundary line should lie or to order the line be changed. This is a legal matter that should be properly determined by inspection of the land and with reference to any documents held by the Land Registry. It follows that this Service cannot determine whether the landlord reached the correct conclusion with regards to the boundary line. However, this investigation has assessed how the landlord dealt with the matter, and what steps were taken to investigate matters relating to the boundary line.
In October 2021, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident at the property to investigate her concerns about the boundary line. By instructing a surveyor to investigate, it demonstrates that the landlord carried out a detailed investigation into the resident’s concerns about the boundary line. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision that there has been no significant changes to the boundary line was reasonable based on the surveyor’s findings. The landlord was entitled to rely on the judgment of its surveyor when it made a decision about the boundary line.
The resident asked the landlord to review its decision that the boundary line had not changed as part of her complaint. The landlord obtained advice from the local authority to support its surveyor’s findings about the boundary line. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, by obtaining further advice from the local authority, the landlord demonstrated to the resident that it took her concerns about the boundary line seriously. It also shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate her concerns and obtained further evidence to support its decision.
To support its decision that the boundary line had not changed significantly, the landlord shared aerial photos of the property and a technical drawing of the property with the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, this further demonstrates a good approach by the landlord. By sharing this additional evidence, the landlord made an effort to explain and evidence its decision to the resident. This additional evidence would have helped the resident to better understand the reasons why the landlord made its decision about the boundary line.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s complaint that the boundary line between her property and her neighbour’s property had moved. It took the resident’s complaint seriously and carried out a thorough and effective investigation into her complaint about the boundary line. It relied on the expert opinion of its surveyor and the local authority to support its decision. The landlord also told the resident about its decision about the boundary line within a reasonable amount of time after she had raised the issue with the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to reinstate the driveway at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a dispute about the boundary line between the resident’s property and a neighbour’s property.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to update her with any new information it has obtained after it contacted the local authority to highlight the wider parking issues in the area.