Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202322513)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322513

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

24 March 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 for the installation of an electric charging port.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom bungalow. His tenancy started in January 2011.
3. On 1 July 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was buying a vehicle which needed an electric charging port at his property. He asked the landlord if it could support him with the port, including the cost of its installation. He said he was aware of grants available but was unsure whether he or it would need to apply and said that he would gratefully receive any information it could provide.
4. The landlord asked internally to send the resident a “home improvement form” on 7 July 2023. He then made his application on 13 July 2023 for the installation of the charging points on his property.
5. The landlord provided the resident with its decision on 9 August 2023. It said that after looking at the application and risks involved, it would not allow him to install the charging point. It said nobody should carry out works to the property in relation to the charging point and explained that the risks involved included:
   1. A trailing lead across communal mowed grass.
   2. There was no sole driveway usage in a boundary of the property.
6. The resident responded on the same day and expressed his disappointment. He said the lead would only be trailing to his car when charging and this would be overnight. He said he had a cable cover that he would place over the cable when in use. He would wrap the cable up when not in use. He said due to the way it built the properties there was no way to designate driveways to properties. He asked for the decision to be reassessed given the information about when and how the charging would take place.
7. The landlord discussed the matter internally on 9 August 2023. It said that it agreed that the current option suggested by the resident was not a viable option. It reiterated its findings around the trip hazard and shared communal spaces.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and raised a complaint about the decision and the landlord’s communication on 15 August 2023. He said he had people chasing for the charging point. He had tried to contact a member of its staff, but it went to voicemail. If he had to return the car, he would bill the landlord for monies lost.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 31 August 2023. It explained his complaint and the reasons for its decision to refuse his request for the charging point. It said it was not possible to provide a designated parking space as the number of communal spaces available were fewer than the number of properties. It considered whether it was possible to extend the parking bay area, but it found that there would not be enough space to allow for this. There was also a biodiversity Tree Protection order which prevent it from creating additional spaces to the front of his property. It also:
   1. Apologised for its poor communication about the situation. It said it was its policy to contact residents in an appropriate and timely manner and it would ensure that it made the policy clear to staff in the future.
   2. Advised that he sought permission for the installation of a charging point prior to making any financial commitments as it did not guarantee consent due to several reasons including the ones it listed.
   3. It would only cover his losses where it had failed to deliver an obligation or service where it was legally obliged to do so.
   4. Said it had researched every possible option to see if it would be possible to grant him permission for the charger. It would consider applications for charger on its properties, but residents must have a driveway or parking space with a dropped kerb for their sole use with clear boundary lines or fence. As this was not the case, and the parking bays close to his home were communal, it was not able to grant him permission for the installation of the charger.
   5. said it did not uphold his complaint.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 8 September 2023. He said it provided various reasons for not allowing him to install the charging point. He felt they were poor and there were ways to work around the issues highlighted with no costs to the landlord. He raised several concerns around the matter such as the amount of rent he paid towards the parking spaces, and a willingness to extend the bays at a cost to himself. He also said he felt discriminated against, and isolated by the lack of responses when trying to get an answer about the issue.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It said it could not comment on the rent his neighbours paid due to data protection. It confirmed to him that his weekly rent did not include contribution to the communal parking space as it did not factor in this facility when it calculated the rent. It also:
    1. Confirmed the parking bay in front of his home was communal and so he did not have a designated parking space for his sole use which stopped him from having a charger installed.
    2. Said his property was not the only one without a designated parking space on his road. If it granted him permission to extend and/or appoint a drive, a precedent would be set when there simply was not sufficient parking space for every home.
    3. Said it did not uphold his complaint.
12. The resident raised his complaint with the Ombudsman on 30 September 2023. He explained the situation and the landlord’s refusal. He said:
    1. He believed the landlord could simplify the process by appointing car parking spaces to residents on the street. Most of the properties had parking bays outside the houses but these were also communal.
    2. With the government wanting people to switch to alternative fuels he felt the landlord were being very unreasonable in their approach to the issue.
    3. He had found many websites which provided information about the chargers and that there was no need for a designated parking bay to be allocated. It would not be possible for a street full of terraced houses that had no driveways and instead parked on the road.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. The resident continued to raise his concerns in October 2023 with the landlord after the completion of the complaint. He explained to us during a call on 13 March 2025 that he asked the landlord again to allow him to install the charger. On this occasion, he said it did not send anyone round to inspect despite his suggestions of burying the cables underground. As this did not form part of his original complaint submitted to the Ombudsman, we cannot consider this element.

Resident’s request for the installation of an electric charging port.

14. The landlord’s alterations and improvements policy says that it classes electrical alterations as a major alteration. Once it received a request it will review the request and can immediately reject it if it is likely to have a negative effect on the neighbours or neighbourhood. It will write to the resident with an outcome of their case within 28 days of receiving the application. If a resident disagrees with the decision, they can appeal in writing giving their reasons. It would review the decision and provide an outcome within 20 working days in writing.
15. The policy also says that it would consider an alteration or improvement to be any works above and beyond decorative, internally, or externally to its property.
16. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns. It acted in line with its policy and explained the reasons for its decision to the resident. He remained unhappy, explained he would charge his car overnight, and queried why it could not extend or provide specific parking spaces. It appropriately provided him with the justification around its decision.
17. The fact that the resident would charge his car overnight did not remove the potential for a trip hazard. His request for allocation of specific car parking spaces and extension of the car park are also requests for improvements to the property and the communal area. The landlord is not obliged to accept requests for alterations or improvements to both the property and communal area. The evidence also shows that the landlord did consider the allocation of specific spaces but decided this was not a suitable or viable approach.
18. The resident also told the landlord that he would hold it responsible for his financial costs for the vehicle if he had to return it. The evidence shows that the landlord reasonably told the resident prior to the purchase that he would require permission for the installation.
19. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s communication. It acknowledged that there were issues with its communication and apologised for this to the resident. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

20. By paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the installation of a charging port.

Recommendation

21. The landlord should explain if it has any plans around its green agenda to the resident specifically around electric car charging points in his local area.