Kirklees Council (202313374)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202313374
Kirklees Council
5 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for permission to install an electric vehicle charging point and driveway.
- Complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant and he lives in a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a local council and it knows the resident has mobility issues.
- On 9 August 2022, the resident asked the landlord how he could get permission to install a vehicle charging point and driveway. He wanted to charge his electric car from his flat. The landlord visited him on 15 August 2022 and refused permission.
- The resident complained on 27 October 2022. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 5 December 2022 which said:
- It could not give him permission to park in the shared garden because other residents had a right to use it. It could not give him permission to install a charging point.
- To park in the garden, he would have to cross a grass verge controlled by the council’s highways department. Highways had no plans to change the design of the verge.
- In June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023 which repeated the reasons it could not give permission for him to charge his car in the shared garden. It said the restrictions were not policy matters and it could not give him permission to install a driveway.
- The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He disagreed with the landlord’s reasons for refusing permission. He was dissatisfied with its handling of his request and complaint. He wanted the landlord to give permission for the alterations needed to charge his car from his flat.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are not about the management of social housing. Where a landlord is a local council, we can only consider complaints about its services as a landlord. We cannot assess a council’s actions in providing other services.
- In this case, the council owns the shared garden around the resident’s flat which is controlled by its housing department. The council also owns the grass verge and public footpaths between the shared garden and the road but they are controlled by its highways department.
- We have assessed the handling of the resident’s permission request as this was done in the council’s role as the landlord. We have referred to the council’s role in managing the grass verge and public footpaths where necessary for context. We have not assessed the council’s actions or decisions in managing the verge or public footpaths because they are not part of its landlord role.
Request to install an electric vehicle charging point and driveway
- The resident’s tenancy agreement says he must ask the landlord’s permission before making any alterations to his flat. It also sets out restrictions on his use of the shared garden including:
- He must not put any structure in the garden or alter it without the landlord’s permission.
- He must not park on any area which is not an authorised parking place.
- He must not obstruct any shared area including footpaths.
- The landlord did not send us a policy or procedure about how it deals with permission requests. This suggests it does not have such documents. The landlord should consider if a policy or procedure would be helpful in making residents aware of how it deals with requests.
- We expect landlords to consider permission requests fairly. They should ask for information needed to make a decision and give a decision within a reasonable timescale. We expect landlords to give a clear explanation of the reasons when refusing a request.
- The landlord was quick to respond to the resident’s request of 9 August 2022. It sent him a permission request form on 15 August 2022 to get further information about it. There is no evidence the resident returned the form or made a written request.
- The landlord then visited him on 17 August 2022 which was a good way for it to get a clear understanding of the changes he wanted to make. The landlord gave its decision within a reasonable timescale because it told him at the visit it was refusing his request.
- When the resident was unhappy with the decision, the landlord thought about other options. For example, it suggested a charger could be installed at the side of the road. This would avoid the need for the resident to drive across the grass verge and park in the shared garden. It was not the landlord’s fault that this was not a solution. This is because the company providing the mobility car and charger decided not to provide a charger at the side of the road. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to visit the resident again when he asked it to.
- During its complaint process, the landlord considered the resident’s point that its refusal was unfair because other flats that shared the garden had driveways. The evidence shows there is a flagged area between other blocks in the shared garden with double gates leading to it. There is no evidence it is being used for parking in the shared garden.
- The evidence also shows there is a driveway next to the end block but it is outside the shared garden, on land controlled by the highways department. This means there is no evidence the landlord has allowed other residents to park in the shared garden.
- The landlord asked the council’s highways department to visit with it. While there is no evidence a joint visit was done, it shows the landlord wanted to consider all aspects of the permission request. The lack of vehicle access across the grass verge was a relevant matter for the landlord to consider.
- It asked whether the highways department had any plans to change the grass verge to give vehicle access across it. This shows the landlord was willing to reconsider its reasons for refusing permission. The highways department confirmed it had no plans to change the verge.
- The landlord was entitled to refuse the resident’s request. We are satisfied that it considered it fairly and got the information it needed to make its decision.
- However, there was service failure in the landlord’s explanations of its reasons for refusal. There is little evidence of the explanations it gave to the resident during its visits as there are no records of the discussions apart from emails the surveyor sent to colleagues afterwards. The emails said the surveyor could not give permission because the garden was shared and the resident would have to drive over the grass verge.
- The landlord attempted to give further explanation in its complaint responses but did not explain its decisions adequately. For example, it said it had given other residents “proprietary” rights to use the shared garden through its tenancy agreements and right to buy sales. It did not explain how those rights would be affected if it gave permission for the resident to build a driveway and install a charging point.
- It would have been better if the landlord had referred to the resident’s tenancy agreement as the basis of its refusal. The agreement is the legal contract between the resident and the landlord. The landlord should have explained how his request related to his agreement. For example, that he was not permitted to obstruct shared areas including footpaths.
- It was appropriate that the landlord referred to the need to drive across the grass verge as a reason for its refusal. However, it should have been clear that there was no vehicle access across the verge and that the existing tarmac path was a footpath for pedestrians.
- The landlord’s unclear explanations left the resident feeling its decision was unfair and that he had been treated differently from other residents. The landlord may have avoided this if it had explained its position clearly and pointed out the efforts it had made to find another solution.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request because it did not explain its reasons for refusal clearly. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation of £50. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and fairly recognises the inconvenience caused.
Complaint handling
- Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
- Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
- Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
- Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
- The landlord’s records show the resident called on 27 October 2022 and was “very annoyed” that his permission request had been refused. The landlord should have considered if his call met the definition of a complaint in the Code and there is no evidence it did so. This was a failing and may have delayed the resident’s access to its complaints process.
- The landlord did not log a complaint until 9 November 2022 when the resident called again asking to speak to manager.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 3 working days. Its letter gave the name of the officer that would be investigating and it included a leaflet about our Service. We think this is good practice because it meant the resident knew who would be dealing with his complaint and how the Ombudsman could help if needed.
- The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 5 December 2022 which was 15 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. There is no evidence the landlord had extended its response timescale with the resident. This means its response was 5 days late.
- It is not clear why the landlord referred to the council’s criteria for outdoor mobility in its stage 1 response. The criteria is part of the council’s assessment process when considering applications for a disabled facilities grant (DFG). There is no evidence the resident had applied for a DFG or that the criteria was relevant to the landlord’s decision to refuse his permission request.
- The landlord later confirmed the criteria for outdoor mobility were not relevant in its stage 2 response. It should consider how it can avoid referring to irrelevant matters in future when responding to complaints.
- The resident called the landlord on 6 June 2023 asking for a copy of its stage 2 response because he wanted to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord acted appropriately in checking whether it had received an escalation request from him. There is no evidence the resident had previously asked for his complaint to be escalated.
- The call of 6 June 2023 should have caused the landlord to realise that he did want to escalate his complaint. It took a further call from the resident on 16 June 2023 before the landlord escalated it. This was another service failing which caused some inconvenience to the resident because he had to chase to get his complaint escalated.
- It may also have delayed him receiving the landlord’s stage 2 response. The response, of 10 July 2023, was given 14 working days after the landlord had escalated the complaint on 16 June 2023. The landlord may have given its final response sooner if it had recognised his escalation on 6 June 2023 as it should have.
- It is not clear whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. This is because the acknowledgement letter it sent us was an uncompleted template of its standard acknowledgement letter.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because there were delays in it recognising the initial complaint and escalation request.
- The failings caused some inconvenience to the resident because he had to chase the landlord to progress his complaint at both stages. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and fairly recognises the inconvenience caused.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Request for permission to install an electric vehicle charging point and driveway.
- Complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
- Write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
- Pay the resident total compensation of £100. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is made up of:
- £50 for any inconvenience caused by its handling of his permission request.
- £50 for any inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.
Recommendations
- The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider:
- If a policy or procedure would be helpful in making residents aware of how it deals with requests for permission to make alterations.
- How it can avoid referring to irrelevant matters in future when responding to complaints.