Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202124480)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124480

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s application to install a driveway.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property as an assured tenant. The property is a bungalow.
  2. The resident submitted a planning application to the landlord on 15 July 2021. The application was to put a hardcore based driveway on the grass, in front of his bungalow. The resident was concerned that vehicles left parked in the street were being damaged. He believed using a driveway would reduce the risk of damage being caused to his own vehicle. The landlord informed the resident that it would need to review the application, due to the proposed driveway being within an open-plan area. The landlord does not normally grant permission for improvements to an area described as open-plan. The landlord refused the application for this reason on 22 September 2021. The resident complained to the landlord about the application process during this time and submitted his appeal. The resident asked why other residents in the area had been allowed to have driveways whereas his application was refused. The resident’s appeal to his application for a driveway was also refused.
  1. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 3 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in processing his application and not sharing it’s open-plan policy sooner. It stated however, that it would not comment on neighbouring developments, as this would be in breach of the Data Protection Act. The resident requested an escalation to his complaint. He did not believe his planning application had been considered in a fair manner.
  2. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process, the landlord granted the resident planning permission for a driveway. This was on a condition that it would be built in line with its ‘hardstanding’s / driveway’s’ document. On 13 December 2021, the resident signed that he was satisfied with this resolution to his complaint.
  3. The resident then submitted a further planning application to the landlord on 14 December 2021. This was for an eco-friendly driveway that used a grass grid system. The landlord advised the resident that it did not meet the specification within the ‘hardstanding’s / driveway’s’ document. The landlord also said it had been given advice by a highways engineer who said the proposal would create the potential for the ground on the driveway area to become muddy. This could lead to soil, mud and grass being inadvertently transferred onto the pavement. As a result, this was likely to cause safety and nuisance issues. It therefore refused the resident’s application.
  4. The resident contacted this service on 17 February 2022. He stated that he had faced numerous delays to his driveway application, unanswered questions and was accused of lying by the landlord. The resident stated the desired outcome was to build a parking space outside his home, using eco-friendly material. This would allow him to purchase an electric car that he would then be able to charge at the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  1. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing by the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to “put things right” and “learn from outcomes”.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Home Improvements Procedure states that each application will be considered on an individual basis. However, the landlord does not normally grant permission for improvements to open plan or communal areas, particularly to the front of the property.
  2. The landlord’s appeal procedure states that residents have a right to appeal against decision’s refusing them permission to carry out improvements. The appeal will be considered by a manager senior to the person who made the original decision. A response will be provided within 20 working days and that is the final decision. It will only be considered further, if the resident has a valid reason to complain and the matter falls within the remit of the complaints policy.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that when a resident has a problem or is unhappy, it will seek to resolve this as an informal complaint. This can include entering the complaint directly at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The formal complaints procedure has two stages. At stage one of the complaints process, the resident is expected to receive a response within ten working days from receipt of the complaint. At stage two, the landlord will respond within 20 working days upon receiving the request to escalate the complaint.

The resident’s application to install a driveway.

  1. The landlord took ten weeks to respond to the resident’s initial planning application for a driveway, in front of his bungalow. The landlord should have responded within 20 working days according to its own guidance. However, it responded 47 working days after its initial acknowledgment of the resident’s application. This delay caused the resident distress, as he was waiting for a decision for longer than he should have been. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails requesting an update during this period of delay. This added to the resident’s frustration. It was right that the landlord apologised for the delay in its communication within its first stage complaint response to the resident.
  2. The landlord also apologised for its delay in providing the resident with a copy of the open-plan policy. This was the document upon which the landlord decided to refuse the resident’s request for a driveway. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for this error and to explain its decision in line with this policy, in its complaint responses.
  3. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was frustrated, that out of ten neighbouring properties within the open-plan area, there were four driveways, two fences, as well as areas of shrubbery. However, the landlord was reasonable to inform the resident that it could not share specific information on neighbouring properties. To do so, would be a breach under the Data Protection Act because landlords should not share personal details about their tenants without the tenants’ consent. There may be various reasons why driveways could be granted to some residents and not to others. This can include differences in the layout of the properties and any communal areas, adjustments in line with the Equality Act and changes in policy over time meaning that the landlord may have agreed to improvements historically which it would not agree to now. The Ombudsman cannot comment on other residents’ individual circumstances, for the same reasons as the landlord. However, we can confirm that we have not seen any evidence to show that the resident has been treated less favourably than other residents of the landlord under the same circumstances.
  4. In view of this, the landlord’s explanation was both accurate and fair. It informed the resident that if it identified that any of his neighbours’ improvements had been without permission, it would take action to have them removed. The landlord also signposted to the resident, to re-submitting his application, if there was further information he could provide in support of his application for a driveway. The landlord explained that it would consider reasonable adjustments for the resident, in line with the Equality Act. The landlord demonstrated good practice in sharing this information, in order to assist the resident.
  5. In the landlord’s final response, it granted the resident permission with conditions for a hardstanding driveway, on the grass in front of his bungalow. The landlord was not obliged to overturn its original refusal to grant permission of the driveway as it had originally acted in line with its home improvements policy. This was in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair and reasonable redress by the landlord to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the planning application process. The landlord demonstrated it sought to put things right for the resident. The resident initially accepted this redress on 13 December 2021.
  6. On 14 December 2021, the resident submitted a further planning application for an eco-friendly, grass grid system driveway. The landlord was timely in visiting the resident on 16 December 2021 in view of the further planning application. The landlord has stated that it acknowledged the legitimacy of the eco-friendly product to the resident. But it also stated that this new planning application would have to be subjected to a further review. This was because it did not comply with its original conditional offer, in which it had informed the resident on how he may construct the driveway. It pointed out that the new application no longer complied with the landlord’s ‘hardstanding’s / driveway’s’ document, that had been issued to the resident in its final response. On 20 January 2021, the landlord refused the resident’s new planning application for an eco-friendly driveway. It advised the resident that he could install the driveway in line with its original conditional offer. This was a reasonable response by the landlord, who had taken steps to consider the new application in line with its relevant policies and procedures. The landlord was entitled to refuse the application for the eco-friendly driveway as it did not meet the requirements listed in the hardstanding’s / driveway’s’ document. The local authority’s Highways department identified the eco-design was a safety risk, through soil inadvertently being transferred to the pavement. In addition, the eco-design application submitted did not provide that there would be a 100mm to 150mm thickness of compacted sub-base. This was required prior to the laying of the plastic grids. It also would require a two metre deep hard-surfaced gravel strip along the entire entrance of the driveway.
  7. The resident has stated that he was informed on 16 December 2021 by the landlord that there were no identified problems with the new application. The resident believed he was given the impression the eco-friendly driveway would proceed. The resident was dissatisfied with what he stated was the landlord’s change in its response to the application. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord was suggesting he had lied about the conversation with the landlord on 16 December 2021. Having reviewed the correspondence, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord accused the resident of lying. In the landlord’s response to the complaint, it apologised if the resident misinterpreted the previous conversation. This suggests that the landlord considered that there had been a misunderstanding rather than the resident deliberately misstating what had been said to him. Upon review of the evidence made available to the Ombudsman, it is a fair assessment that the communication was likely to have been a misinterpretation by both parties as to what had been agreed. In relation to the landlord’s response to the second application, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was no maladministration by the landlord because its decision was in line with its relevant policy for driveways. The landlord is entitled to set such restrictions on the type of driveways it allows at its properties.

The associated complaint.

  1. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his planning application for a driveway on 20 September 2021. Internal communications evidence that the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint from informal to stage one of its formal complaints procedure on 22 September 2021. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint for a further 12 working days. It then provided its stage one complaint response to the resident a further 18 days after this on 3 November 2021. It took the landlord a total of 30 days to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint. The landlord was in breach of its complaint policy, as it should have replied to the resident within ten working days. However, it acknowledged this and where appropriate it upheld the resident’s complaints and apologised.
  2. In all the circumstances of this case, the landlord’s overall offer to the resident, in apologising and agreeing for him to build a driveway that complied with its ‘hardstanding’s / driveway’s’ document, is considered to have provided a reasonable remedy for the service failures identified in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. “In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to install a driveway.
  2. “In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.