Stevenage Borough Council (202428889)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428889

Stevenage Borough Council

25 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to park within the property boundary and his request for a management move.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and moved into the property on 20 June 2024 with his wife and daughter. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house. The resident’s daughter is registered disabled, and the landlord has provided us with a copy of an occupational therapist’s (OT) report which highlights her needs.
  2. On 9 July 2024, the resident submitted an alteration request to the landlord. He asked for permission to replace his existing garden fence with an outward opening gate so he could use his garden for parking. He also planned to create an area of hard standing in the garden to park on. The landlord requested more information on 23 July 2024 and sent a surveyor on 20 August 2024.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 27 August 2024 that it could not approve his request as the land immediately outside his boundary was communal so it could not grant him exclusive access. It recommended that the resident apply to the local council for a disabled space.
  4. On 28 August 2024, the OT emailed the resident confirming that further evidence was needed to support any application for a hard standing. They also recommended that the resident apply to the local council for a disabled space.
  5. The resident made a complaint on 18 September 2024 as he was not happy with the decision. He also said that the surveyor who attended gave the impression that his alteration request would be approved. He said that the property was not suitable for his daughter’s needs, and he felt rushed during the initial viewing.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 October 2024. It confirmed that the surveyor did say that there were no practical issues with the request within the resident’s boundary; however, it then discovered the land behind the fence was communal and it could not approve any access agreements. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It also confirmed that it believed the property was still appropriate for the resident’s daughter’s needs, and therefore the family did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It apologised that he felt pressured in the original viewing and confirmed it had identified room for improvement with its practices.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint the same day and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 25 October 2024. It upheld its previous decision and did not find any service failure.
  8. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the parking request and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that residents may make improvements to their home but first must ask the landlord for written permission. There is evidence that the resident followed this process to request the alterations to his fence shortly after he moved in.
  2. The aids and adaptations policy states that a person will be considered for adaptations in their home under the Equality Act 2010 if they are a tenant and they, or a member of their immediate family who is permanently resident in the household, has a long lasting impairment that substantially affects their ability to carry out normal day to day activities or access facilities in or around their home.
  3. The resident’s daughter is registered disabled, and this is confirmed in the OT report. We note that the report also stated that the property needed an additional banister on the stairs, and this was not installed in time for the resident moving into the property. The resident told the landlord that he felt it was not taking his daughter’s health concerns seriously and had put her at risk.
  4. This issue was not the focus of the substantive complaint and will not be investigated in this report; however, there is evidence that the matter negatively affected the relationship between the landlord and resident.
  5. After it received the resident’s application regarding the parking area, the landlord sent a surveyor to assess the property and determine if the work was feasible. This was appropriate and in line with its policy. The surveyor confirmed to the resident that the work was reasonable; however, the landlord then informed him that it could not approve his request. This was confusing for the resident, particularly as there is evidence that the garden may have been used for parking by a previous tenant.
  6. The landlord explained that a previous resident had used the garden for parking without its permission, and it was not aware of when the kerb outside the property boundary was dropped. The local council confirmed that the area to the rear of the property which the resident would need to use as a throughfare was a communal car parking area. For this reason, the landlord could not grant the resident exclusive use of that area. The landlord also stated that even if it granted permission for the works, there was no guarantee that the resident could reliably access his garden as it had no enforcement powers over the communal space.
  7. The resident expressed his frustration to the landlord that other residents use the same communal area and dropped kerb as a throughfare; however, it told the resident not to. He felt that this was discrimination against his daughter due to her disability.
  8. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which conducts public functions to have ‘due regard’ (properly consider) how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so. There is evidence that the landlord did act in accordance with this duty and considered what other support it could give. It used the OT report to support its decision making when it assessed the resident’s application for alterations and was open to a management move if the OT deemed the parking unsuitable.
  9. We have also seen evidence that the OT informed the landlord and the resident that they felt the resident’s daughter did not require a parking space directly outside the house. The OT’s statement that the resident’s daughter would benefit from parking “nearby” was open to interpretation and the landlord and resident had differing viewpoints. However, the landlord is not responsible for this report and based on the evidence, followed the recommendations.
  10. The OT invited the resident to provide any additional evidence he felt may be relevant if he wanted them to reassess the property. Both the landlord and OT recommended the resident apply for a disabled space in the interim and this was reasonable.
  11. Once the alteration request was refused, the resident asked the landlord to move him to a property with more accessible parking. The landlord said that it could not do a management transfer as the family did not have a housing need under the local authority allocations policy.
  12. The allocations policy states that disabled residents have a housing need if they urgently need to move because their home is assessed as being highly unsuitable and is directly detrimental to the applicants’ physical or mental health. Alternatively, there is a housing need if a member of the household is not housebound, but their current housing is exacerbating their health conditions.
  13. There is no evidence that either condition applied to the household, and this is based on the feedback from the OT and the original OT report. Therefore, the landlord’s position that the resident did not have a housing need was reasonable.
  14. The resident has informed this Service that the local council accepted his application for a disabled bay. However, since it was introduced, he said he cannot always access it as other residents use it. This means that he still does not have a guarantee that he can park near the property and sometimes must park at the end of the street. We do not know whether the resident reported this to the landlord or local authority. The landlord does not have formal enforcement powers, but it would be reasonable for it to remind its residents to park considerately. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report.
  15. We do not discount the resident’s experience and understand that the situation has at times affected his mental health. We also recognise that the situation continues to be frustrating for him as he is still unable to park outside his property. That said, we did not find any evidence of maladministration in this case.
  16. The landlord followed the OT recommendations and gave appropriate advice such as applying for a disabled space. The landlord is not the owner of the land in question, and it is not within its power to grant exclusive access to any individual. It could, however, consider what other actions it could take to improve the situation, and recommendations will be made at the end of this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to park within the property boundary and his request for a management transfer.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should remind other residents around the importance of parking considerately, and that disabled spaces should only be used by those who require them.
  2. The landlord should consult with the OT to determine whether the disabled space not always being accessible impacts the OT housing assessment.