Brentwood Borough Council (202103090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103090

Brentwood Borough Council

12 May 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 complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it install a driveway at his property.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for costs incurred in maintaining land.

Background

2. The resident has rented his bungalow for 4 years under a secure tenancy with the landlord and has no vulnerabilities recorded. His complaint states that he is the only resident in his street without a dropped kerb and an allocated parking space.
3. The resident was advised by the landlord, in November 2020, that he could apply for a dropped kerb, but installation would be at his own cost. He was sent a boundary map and then found he had been maintaining (mowing lawn/cutting hedge) land adjacent to his property which did not form part of his tenancy. He complained to the landlord on 13 May 2021, expressing his dissatisfaction that he had been told that doing the upkeep did not entitle him to the land, and that the landlord would not pay for the dropped kerb/driveway. The landlord replied on 19 May 2021 that other properties may have been built with the dropped kerb, but that this was not a right, and the information he had been given about the land was correct.
4. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 24 May 2021, in which he said that other tenants did not have to pay for the dropped kerb and there should have been a fence to show the adjacent land was not his. The landlord’s stage two (final) response was issued on 10 June 2021 restating its position that boundary fences were not routinely given, and the landlord did not feel a fence was required to designate the boundary.
5. The resident remained unhappy that the landlord would not provide a driveway and did not tell him that adjacent land was not his. He said that he would like a dropped kerb paid for by the landlord and compensation for the four years he cut and maintained the piece of land next to his property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. The role of the ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord has acted within the law, the tenancy agreement and relevant policies relating to the resident and his property. The purpose of an investigation is to assess whether a landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and to decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.

Driveway

7. The tenancy agreement makes no explicit reference to provision of parking facilities, such as a dropped kerb, as part of the tenancy. Having signed this agreement at the start of the tenancy, the resident therefore accepted the property on that basis. Whilst other properties in the vicinity might have such facilities, this does not entail that the landlord is obliged to provide the same facilities for the resident.
8. The landlord’s Housing Handbook says at page 33 that ‘If you park a vehicle on your premises, you must have a properly constructed hard standing and dropped kerb. Permission must be requested in writing (to the county council). Subject to certain conditions permission may be granted and you will receive a letter detailing how the work must be carried out. You will be required to meet all the costs incurred.’
9. In this instance, the landlord directed the resident to the county council to make such an application in November 2020. Although the landlord gave its reasons why the application was likely to be declined, it did not say that the resident could not have a driveway, but that it would not fund the cost of it.
10. Although there was some delay between the resident’s further enquiries during the period December 2020 and March 2021 and the landlord’s response of 23 March 2021, the correct information had already been supplied in relation to the dropped kerb.
11. The resident was unhappy with the information he was given but his complaint was dealt with in a timely manner and the landlord’s response reiterated the initial information. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the landlord is responsible for providing a dropped kerb at the property.
12. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s frustration on this issue and his view that he should have a driveway in common with his neighbours. However, the fact that other properties on the street have a dropped kerb does not entitle the resident to have this provided by the landlord. The resident took on the tenancy in 2017 with no dropped kerb, and the landlord has not acted unfairly in not providing one. Therefore, no service failure has taken place in relation to the dropped kerb.

Adjacent land

13. The landlord’s Housing Handbook says at page 29 that ‘Other than marking out a boundary, we have no other obligation to provide fencing’. In its stage two complaint response dated 10 June 2021, the landlord confirmed that boundary plans were not routinely given to residents. The landlord also said that it did not feel a fence was required to designate the boundary in this instance.
14. There is no evidence that the resident was advised the land next to his property was his, or any suggestion made so that he should reasonably think it was. It is not disputed that there is a ‘post and chain’ type fence around the resident’s front garden which does not include the adjacent land, which suggests a boundary. It is not unreasonable that the landlord would only provide boundary details on request and no evidence has been provided that the landlord is obliged to mark the boundary further than it has already done.
15. The landlord has investigated the communication with the resident, it did not find any issues on behalf of its staff but did find the resident’s behaviour had been unacceptable at points. The email dated 23 March 2021 which the resident found condescending is noted, however the contents are not unreasonable but state the landlord’s position on the land and the resident’s maintenance of it.
16. While the resident’s disappointment on this issue is clear, it would seem that he has made an assumption about the land next to his property, but not as a result of any misinformation on behalf of the landlord. The landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns as he raised them. Therefore, no service failure has occurred in respect to the adjacent land. It follows that there are no grounds for the resident to be compensated for any maintenance he undertook on this land of his own free will.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it install a driveway at his property.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for costs incurred in maintaining land.