South Cambridgeshire District Council (202323272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323272

South Cambridgeshire District Council

26 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 to install an electrical vehicle (EV) charging point to the property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom bungalow. He lives in the property with his wife and they both have mobility issues.
3. On 21 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he had a new hybrid car. He asked if the landlord could fit an EV charging point with a 10 metre long cable. He said this could be outside the wall of his home or on a nearby lamp post so he could charge his vehicle once a week.
4. The landlord responded on 27 April 2023. It said it could not grant permission for an EV charging point due to the prohibition of vehicular access across from the communal land. It said it did not permit residents to park on the grass area. The landlord confirmed that it had recently written to residents to remind them that it was not permittable to park on the grassed area at anytime. It provided the contact details for the county council highways department for the resident to enquire about an EV charging point on the road. It also provided a link to locations of current EV charging points.
5. On 15 August 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint in relation to the landlord’s refusal of installing an EV charging point at his home. He said the reason regarding crossing communal land was outdated and irrelevant. He said it should update its policies to allow access to a home’s EV charging point. The resident said he was angry and he did not have any alternative options. He said he wanted the landlord to grant permission to install a personal EV charging point at the front of his home.
6. On 11 September 2023, a member of the landlord staff confirmed that they had visited the resident’s property. They said they took photos and also spoke to the resident over the phone about his request. They described the resident’s property as behind a disabled parking spot, then across the grass, and then behind a tree.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 September 2023. It said it had investigated the complaint and discussed it with the management team. It said due to the communal land at the front of the resident’s home, and the lack of vehicular access, it was not able to grant permission for the EV charging point. The landlord said the issue and its policy was something it would take up with its leadership team, as it could be a bigger problem moving forward.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He said the situation would only get worse as more vehicles became electric or hybrid. He said the landlord’s stance disregarded the government plans to make it easier for the public to adopt electric or hybrid vehicles. He suggested that the landlord place an eco plastic paving mat across the communal grassland to allow vehicular access. The resident said the landlord should amend its policy.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023. It said it sympathised with the resident’s issues but it could not support the request at that time. It reiterated its stance regarding there being no vehicular access to the resident’s property and that he would need to drive across public green space. The landlord referred to a public access charging point nearby which it said the resident could use. It said it aimed to create a greener, zero-carbon future for its communities wherever possible, practical, and safe to do so. But it could not support the resident’s request.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had not fully considered the special circumstances of this case. He said both he and his wife were blue badge holders and the distance to the nearest public EV charging point was impractical for them. He said the landlord allowed him to pull onto the communal grass area to offload shopping and he could not see any difference in driving on to it to access the charging point.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident has referred to his difficulties with using the public access EV charging points due to his limited mobility. He has also stated that he has been permitted to drive on the communal grass land to offload shopping. Upon reviewing the information provided, these issues were not raised during the landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to consider them. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. And because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaints prior to our involvement.

The landlord’s obligations

12. The landlord has information regarding EV charging points on its website. It states that it is not responsible for installing charging points at a property, but if a resident would like one installed, they would need to apply for permission. It states that as long as there is a suitable space within the boundary of the home, it would grant permission. It said it cannot grant permission to install charging points in shared parking spaces or public spaces.
13. The information says that for the installation of an on-street EV charge point, residents would need to contact the county council. It states requests cannot be responded to individually and will be reviewed collectively to help inform delivery in areas where demand is greatest. 
14. The landlord’s tenants handbook says not to park on grass or open spaces, unless there is a dropped kerb, written permission, and a properly constructed driveway.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install an EV charging point to the property

15. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the landlord. The reasons for this have been outlined below.
16. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether the resident should have an EV charging point fitted to his property. We can consider how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports within the timeframe of the complaint. We can also assess if a landlord has taken the appropriate steps in line with good practice and procedure to make its decision. We will not criticise decisions or actions if we find the landlord has taken them correctly.
17. The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial request in April 2023 was reasonable. In line with its guidance, it explained that it could not permit the charging point due to the lack of suitable space within the boundary of the home. There was a communal green area which the resident would need to drive across to reach any charging point installed at his home. The resident also does not have access to any off street or direct on street parking at his home. Residents are required to park in the communal car parking area and there is a disabled parking bay within it which the resident has access to.
18. In his initial request, the resident also inquired about installing a charging point at the nearest lamp post. The landlord signposted the resident to the county council highways department. This was the correct action to take as the landlord was not responsible for the installation of on street or public EV charging points. The resident has raised dissatisfaction with the lack of response from the county council, however, this investigation can only consider the actions of the landlord.
19. The resident felt that the landlord had already set a precedence for parking on the grass, he said that his neighbours parked and drove across the grass areas. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account regarding his neighbours or the photographs provided. However, we have not seen any communication from the landlord which conflicts with its position regarding not parking and driving on the grass area.
20. On 27 April 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had received reports of vehicles driving on and parking on the communal grass area. It said it had recently written to all residents reminding them that it was not permittable to park on the area at any time. The landlord has also provided letters to the Ombudsman which it had sent to the resident in previous years. The letters reiterate that he is not permitted to drive on or park on the grass areas surrounding his property. In reviewing this information, the landlord’s written communication on the matter prior to and during the requests has been consistent, and in line with its policy.
21. The resident felt the landlord should change its policies in relation to driving across the grass areas. He said the landlord’s stance was not in line with the government plans for electric and hybrid vehicles. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the issue raised may become a bigger problem in the future. It said it would take it up with its leadership team to look into its policy. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it aimed to create a zero-carbon future for its communities where possible, practical, and safe to do so.
22. The landlord’s response was fair and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The landlord will have its own internal procedures and timeframes for reviewing policies. To change a policy, it would need to consider all the parties who may be affected and consult with a number of stakeholders. This did not change the outcome for the resident at the time. However, its response demonstrated that it had listened to the resident and would use his complaint to help inform any future policy reviews.
23. Overall, the landlord has evidenced that it responded reasonably to the resident. It showed that while it empathised with the resident, it had assessed the property, consulted with the appropriate staff, and followed its guidance to reach its decision. Although it could not permit the installation of an EV charging point at the resident’s home, it appropriately outlined the available options to the resident.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install an EV charging point to the property.