Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311798

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 October 2024


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 decision to refuse permission to install a driveway.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy in a one-bedroom bungalow with the landlord. The property is part of a scheme of bungalows with communal gardens to the front and rear and the landlord maintains these gardens. The resident is disabled and has reduced mobility which the landlord is aware of.
  2. Between January 2023 and April 2023 the resident requested permission to install a driveway at the front of his property. On 18 April 2023 the landlord informed him via telephone that as the land was communal it was refusing his request. At the end of April 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. He was unhappy that the landlord had told his neighbour about his application and questioned why they were allowed a driveway. On 27 April 2023 the landlord confirmed in writing that it had refused his request for a driveway.
  3. On 10 May 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised for ‘mistakenly’ contacting his neighbour about his application. It said the area was communal land and could not be adjusted to a permanent driveway. It added that the land provided access for its grounds maintenance team to attend and carry out work to the communal areas. It apologised for the poor level of communication and offered £60 compensation in recognition. The same day the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he wanted to appeal the decision and provided the landlord with reasons why. This included his intention to change his car to an electric vehicle which he said would require a power supply to charge it. Further, he again questioned why his neighbour had a driveway.
  4. On 1 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It repeated its reasons for refusing his application. Regarding his neighbour, it said it would revoke access for individual vehicles to park in this area and that access would only be provided to its ground maintenance team. In addition, it urged him not to purchase a car that his home could not safely accommodate.
  5. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision. He said he felt discriminated against as his neighbour had a driveway that the landlord widened in 2023 and was still being used. In addition, he was concerned that his car would be damaged on the roadside.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within his complaint the resident asserted that the landlord had discriminated against him. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can assess whether the landlord‘s decision was fair and reasonable.

The landlord’s decision to refuse permission to install a driveway

  1. The landlord’s website states that it will consider all applications for improvements or alterations affecting the building residents live in and surrounding areas. For communal areas, it states that it must guarantee that any changes made do not adversely affect the rights of other individuals who live on the estate. The landlord’s home improvement procedure says that when it receives an application for a new driveway it should identify if there are other dropped curbs within the same estate belonging to it. It adds that it will advise relevant staff members if a precedent has already been set up within the same estate.
  2. In response to the resident’s application to install a driveway, the landlord explained that the area was communal land and provided access for its ground maintenance team. Indeed, the images seen by this Service appear to confirm this and there is no evidence that this area forms part of the resident’s tenancy agreement. Therefore, in this case, the landlord’s decision to refuse permission for a driveway was reasonable. Further, its decision showed that it had appropriately considered its guidance. In this case, it could not guarantee that had it granted permission it would not have adversely affected the rights of other residents living on the estate. The landlord acted fairly in this respect and demonstrated it had considered the potential wider impact.
  3. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said he felt discriminated against as his neighbour had a driveway the landlord widened in 2023. While it is recognised that this would have caused frustration to the resident, the landlord informed him that this was a mistake and that it was in the process of revoking permission for individual vehicles to park there. Indeed, the Ombudsman has seen evidence which confirms this. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns. Further, it acted in line with its procedure by identifying a precedent and subsequently taking steps to correct its error. This showed a willingness to try and ensure its decision–making was fair and consistent.
  4. The resident was also concerned that as he had to park his car on the roadside it may get damaged. He explained that his car was electric, and he ran a cable across the public footway to charge it. While this Service does not underestimate the resident’s concerns this would have been unlikely to have changed the landlord’s decision. Its decision to refuse permission to install a driveway was fair. It considered the resident’s application and provided a clear response setting out its position. Further, as this area is communal land, belonging to the landlord it was under no obligation to grant permission. In view of this, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration.
  5. However, the Ombudsman has identified recommendations that may assist in this case. Given the resident’s disability, the landlord should consider signposting him to an occupational therapist who can assess whether any adaptations are needed to the property. In addition, the resident raised concerns about the possibility of the local authority installing double yellow lines on the roadside. In light of this, the landlord should consider liaising with the local authority about the parking arrangements in the area.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to refuse permission to install a driveway.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider signposting the resident to an occupational therapist.
  2. The landlord should consider liaising with the local authority about the parking arrangements in the area.