Bristol City Council (202414595)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414595

Bristol City Council

2 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident losing access to an area at the rear of her property where she parked her car.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a drop kerb and drive to the front of the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local council. The resident’s tenancy started by way of mutual exchange in September 2023. The property is a house which has a section of concrete hardstanding within the garden boundary. The resident believes it remains following demolition of a garage. The date of the demolition is unknown. The resident held a key to a locked gate to access a lane which led to the rear of the property and former garages, where she says she parked her car. The landlord states the resident did not disclose any health vulnerabilities at the start of her tenancy.
The resident says she experiences mental health difficulties, physical complications due to menopause, and has a recent diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). She also says her 2 children have health and support needs.
On 1 November 2023 the resident sought permission to make alterations to the property. She asked to install a drive to the front of the house. And for permission to place a shipping container on the remaining hardstanding of a former garage at the rear of the garden. The landlord rejected both applications due to its records showing her holding an ‘introductory tenancy.’ The resident repeated the request in February 2024.
On 3 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unable to park her car at the rear of her home due to construction work. She said she had no knowledge of the redevelopment of the former garages, which she now understood would take at least 12 months. She explained difficulties with her health, the impact the loss of parking would have on her job, and said her car insurance renewal had significantly increased. She sought for the landlord to offer an alternative parking space or install a dropped kerb and drive at the front of her home.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It explained the resident had no allocated parking space as part of her tenancy. It said it traditionally had informal arrangements in place where it allowed residents to access the road to the former garage site pending its redevelopment. It said it was happy for the resident to explore installing her own drive and dropped kerb, but it would not fund this for her. It expressed sympathy for the resident’s situation but did not uphold her complaint. The landlord also told the resident’s local councillor that the resident would require planning permission.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 May 2024 and she also communicated with the local councillor. Her feedback included that she:
1. Considered the hardstanding qualified as a designated parking space as it sat within the boundary of her property.
2. Disputed the need for planning permission for a drop kerb.
3. Had not received notice of the construction work or loss of access.
4. Was experiencing mental and physical health vulnerabilities due to difficulties parking.
5. Considered the landlord’s removal of the parking as discrimination due to her disabilities.
Following an extension request in June 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. It said it:
1. Had consulted with its solicitors regarding the resident’s reference to the land registry title for the property. And remained satisfied that there were no rights to park.
2. Had agreed a temporary cease of access rights via a legal process. And it would restore access to the rear of the affected properties on completion of the redevelopment.
3. Was sorry for previously saying the resident required planning permission for a drop kerb. And corrected this to requiring an excavation licence.
4. Remained satisfied that the development underwent full planning permission. And that it made agreements with the former tenant that there would be no access during the work.
5. Sent letters to all neighbours, including the resident’s address on 13 March 2024 about the redevelopment start date.
6. Was sorry that the situation was causing her inconvenience. And reflecting on her personal circumstances, offered to pay the cost of her car insurance increase for the next 12 months on production of the quotes.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said she had received no warning of the construction work and as a disabled resident, the landlord should provide her with alternative parking. The resident informed us that she did not accept the landlord’s goodwill gesture to pay the cost of her car insurance increase. She states experiencing difficulties providing the evidence due to her ADHD diagnosis.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with the landlord and us, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the parking issues caused stress which affected her health vulnerabilities. She described experiencing increased difficulties to fulfil everyday tasks due to the loss of parking. She states this included leaving the house which affected her employment status.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury or monetary loss due to employment matters. These matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had treated her differently due to her disabilities. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. This matter therefore falls outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation. Or she can speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
Furthermore, we note that the resident says the landlord’s actions were in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). We will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and whether it considered its duties under the Act. We will not determine whether the landlord breached the Act, as this would be a matter for the courts to decide.
Our decision considers whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Access and parking

The landlord’s records demonstrate that it set the resident up as an introductory tenant at the start of her tenancy. This was incorrect. A mutual exchange is when one or more social tenants swap their tenancy with another social tenant. In doing so, they assign the tenancy conditions, rights, and security of tenure. In this case, the landlord should have set the resident up as a secure tenant. The landlord acknowledged that this was an administrative inputting error and confirms the resident holds a secure tenancy.
Given the identification of this error, we requested evidence of the former resident’s tenancy agreement. By doing so, this enabled our investigation to consider the terms and conditions which should have transferred to the resident. The evidence shows, the assigned tenancy does not include any specific reference to parking. Nor does the resident pay any additional service charges specifically for parking.
Evidence shows the landlord wrote to all residents in April 2021 regarding the demolition of a former garage site at the rear of the resident’s home. The letter informed residents of access restrictions via the road leading to the rear of the properties. This was appropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s communication regarding the matter.
Furthermore, the planning application register in March to November 2022 granted the landlord permission to redevelop the site into 9 new build homes. The landlord described informing all residents of its plans. While we have not seen copies of these letters or planning notices, it is reasonable that the landlord met its legal obligations to consult with residents to secure this planning.
While these events happened prior to the resident’s mutual exchange in September 2023, her decision to accept the property was hers. It would have been based on her viewing the property and her conversations with the former resident. As such, it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure she was satisfied as she was accepting the property ‘as seen.’ This would have included clarification of any parking rights and the effects of the redevelopment work.
That said, we have been unable to identify any evidence the landlord directly informed the resident of the redevelopment during the tenancy sign up. While choosing to mutually exchange was the resident’s decision, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have ensured she was aware of all matters which the former resident may not have explained. This demonstrates gaps in the landlord’s communication.
The landlord does not dispute the resident held a key to a locked gate which allowed her access to the rear of her property and former garage site. And the resident acknowledges that other residents also had informal arrangements with the landlord to access the area to park. However, the resident considered the informal arrangement did not apply to her as a hardstanding remained within her property’s boundary. As the resident’s tenancy contains no specific parking rights, we can find no fault with the landlord’s position that the resident also benefited from the informal arrangement.
The resident’s disappointment regarding the change of circumstances is understandable. That said, while it is unclear how precisely the landlord and resident discussed and confirmed the informal parking terms, we can only consider the tenancy conditions. While the landlord did not demonstrate effective communication regarding the redevelopment to the resident, the tenancy is clear that she was not allocated parking.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2024 said her car insurance policy would increase by £300 if she could not park on her driveway. However, there is no allocated parking rights or driveway within the resident’s tenancy. Therefore, the terms and conditions of her car insurance policy or costs were a matter between the resident and her insurer. As such, the landlord had no obligation to pay for this increase.
Furthermore, there is evidence on 1 November 2023 where the resident first sought permission to place a shipping container on the hardstanding. We note that her application states that she “only parked there sometimes.” Given this information, it is therefore unclear how the redevelopment work caused the resident’s car insurance costs to increase if she was already regularly parking elsewhere. However, based on the evidence and without specific parking rights, the landlord had no obligation to pay for the resident’s increased insurance costs.
The resident’s escalation request on 29 May 2024 considered that the remaining hardstanding base in her garden qualified as “designated parking.” And she also described how the land registry showed the hardstanding sat within the property’s boundary. While we recognise the area in question does sit within the property’s boundary, the land registry is about ownership. It does not define the terms and conditions of an individual’s tenancy. Therefore, the landlord’s response explaining this fact was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In contact with us, the resident also considered there was a “long-standing precedent” to recognise the hardstanding as a designated parking space. As such, she considered the landlord should have provided her with alternative parking when it suspended access to the rear of the properties. While it is reasonable to consider that a garage may have been present at some point within the property’s history, this does not alter the terms of the tenancy assigned to the resident.
The evidence shows the former tenant signed a tenancy agreement in 2016, which did not include any allocated or designated parking. As such, these are the terms assigned to the resident in September 2023. Therefore, the landlord had no obligation to provide the resident alternative parking when it commenced the redevelopment works.
We note the resident states the landlord’s actions affected her health. While the resident informed us of a more recent health diagnosis, the evidence shows she did not inform the landlord of any household health vulnerabilities during the tenancy sign up. Nor is there any evidence that she provided the landlord with any medical information before her complaint.
However, between the resident’s complaint in May 2024, to the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2024, the resident referred to having a disability. It is therefore unclear what action the landlord took to investigate this. Or how it updated its records. The landlord had further opportunity to react to this information following a letter from the resident’s local councillor in June 2024. That it did not act on this information, demonstrates a failure to maintain accurate household records. We have therefore recommended the landlord contacts the resident to update matters.
The landlord remained satisfied that the resident had no allocated parking rights. And that it was not responsible to fund or provide alternative parking arrangements. However, it apologised for the inconvenience that its communication and the construction work caused and offered to pay the increased car insurance costs. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord was under no obligation to do this and its gesture demonstrated its efforts to put things right.
Based on our findings we find the landlord offered reasonable redress. We may have found maladministration but for the landlord’s efforts to acknowledge the resident’s circumstances and how its communication affected her. Its offer to cover the cost of the resident’s increased car insurance was consistent with our remedies guide for maladministration. We have therefore recommended the landlord contacts the resident to honour its offer.

Drop kerb and drive

On 1 November 2023 the resident first sought permission to alter the front garden for off road parking. The landlord declined the resident’s request as it considered her to be an introductory tenant. The landlord’s failure to correctly identify the resident as a secure tenant affected its ability to correctly respond to her request. This caused the resident avoidable time and trouble having to raise her request again at a later stage.
The landlord’s records state it sent letters to all residents of the area on 13 March 2024. It states it informed households of the construction start date and temporary closure of the access road to the rear of the properties. While we have not seen a copy of this letter, we have identified no evidence to suggest the resident did not receive this. However, it is clear that the resident considers she had no awareness of the redevelopment prior to this date.
On 3 May 2024 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not communicated its intentions to close access to the rear of the properties. And said it should provide her with a dropped kerb and driveway to the front of her house. The landlord disputes and states it wrote to residents in March 2024 along with its contractors.
While we understand the disappointment and inconvenience this situation would cause, the landlord was under no obligation to provide alternative parking of any sort. Had the resident’s tenancy included provision for an allocated parking space, our findings may have been different.
The landlord incorrectly informed the resident’s local councillor that the resident would require planning permission for a dropped kerb. When challenged by the resident during her escalation request, the landlord addressed this error in its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that its communication to the councillor in June 2024 had been misleading. It apologised and correctly advised that the work would require an excavation licence. While the detriment of this error was minimal it did cause the resident further time and trouble to resolve matters.
Based on our findings we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a drop kerb and drive to the front of the property. As the resident mutually exchanged to a property with no allocated parking, the landlord was under no obligation to provide any alternative. Nor required to install a dropped kerb and drive.
However, there were gaps and or errors in the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s tenancy. This caused her time and trouble chasing matters which caused a loss of confidence in the landlord’s service delivery. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2–stage complaint procedure, at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its policy states it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 3 working days and send the response within 15 working days. It would also send a stage 2 complaint response within 15 working days.
The same policy states it would inform the resident of any reasons which may delay it responding and agree a new response date with the resident in advance.
The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2024. The Code states landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2. The Code became statutory as of 1 April 2024, which means by law, the landlord should have amended its complaints policy accordingly. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with the statutory expectations.
The resident complained on 3 May 2024. She should therefore have received an acknowledgement by 13 May 2024 and a stage 1 response by 20 May 2024. The landlord did not respond on time, sending its response 5 working days late. This was not consistent with the expectations of the Code.
Furthermore, we have not been able to identify how or when it acknowledged her complaint. We have therefore recommended the landlord considers how it records this action.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 May 2024. She should therefore have received an acknowledgement by 5 June 2024 and a stage 2 response by 26 June 2024. The landlord did not demonstrate achieving either of these dates.
We have again been unable to identify how and when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. However, evidence shows it requested an extension and agreed a new response date with her. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord failed to achieve its agreed extension date of 5 July 2024, sending its response 2 working days late. Although, we note its response apologised for a “further delay” and thanked the resident for the additional time to investigate her complaint. This apology was reasonable in the circumstances as the detriment of missing the extension date by 2 days would have been minimal.
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough investigation. It had requested additional time to consult with legal teams and explained its findings. This demonstrated its efforts to fully consider the resident’s concerns prior to sending its response.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. We may have found no maladministration but for the landlord’s failure to demonstrate the effective implementation of the statutory Code. While the landlord generally met the expectations of its own older complaint’s policy, its failure to meet the expectations of the statutory Code caused avoidable delays. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when there have been delays in getting a matter resolved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident losing access to an area at the rear of her property where she parked her car.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a drop kerb and drive to the front of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. We order the landlord to apologise for the communication failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £50 for the for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a drop kerb and drive to the front of the property.
  2. £50 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustment needs, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
We recommend the landlord reoffers to pay the resident’s increased car insurance costs on production of the renewal price evidence. Or make her an offer up to the £300 discussed during the landlord’s internal complaints process.
We recommend the landlord provides the resident with a written update on the timeframe for the completion of the redevelopment. And reassure her that it will restore access to the rear of the properties on completion of the redevelopment.
We recommend the landlord considers how it records its complaint acknowledgements in line with the Code.