The Riverside Group Limited (202403212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403212

The Riverside Group Limited

06 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 response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s parking.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband have an assured tenancy which began in 2001. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom detached bungalow with a private back garden and an alleyway to the front driveway. The resident shares the alleyway and front driveway with her neighbour. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had recorded that the resident uses a mobility scooter, and that the household was vulnerable.
The resident’s representative brought the complaint to this Service on behalf of the resident. The representative also sent correspondence to the landlord throughout the complaint. For ease of reference, we will refer to the resident and their representative as ‘the resident’.
On 6 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that her neighbour kept blocking full access to her driveway with their car. The landlord contacted the resident the same week to discuss the reported issue. Over the following 4 months, the resident continued to report that the neighbour would park their car in front of the entrance to the shared alleyway. She said this prevented her from being able to store her mobility scooter in the back garden and drive it via the alleyway to the front of the house and out of the driveway.
On 21 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she wanted to raise a complaint. She said:
1. the parking dispute had arisen because the neighbour had been parking directly in front of the resident’s house for several years. In response to this, in 2022, the resident had placed a boundary of concrete garden planters at the side of her house. The neighbour had since been parking directly in front of the shared alleyway, which left no room for the resident to exit using her mobility scooter.
2. she has a brain tumour which impacts her mobility and eyesight. She said her husband has brittle bones. She said they were worried about the risk of tripping and injury. She said the landlord had not attempted to make reasonable adjustments for her disability.
3. the landlord had told the resident that she can store her mobility scooter in the hallway and exit via the front door. The resident said this could pose a fire risk as the scooter takes up a big proportion of the hallway.
4. the neighbour was breaching the tenancy agreement by obstructing access to the resident’s entrance.
5. she would like the landlord to either relocate the shared car park or to create a driveway on the neighbour’s garden for the neighbour to park their car in.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint because it said that the resident’s neighbour was not breaching their tenancy agreement by parking on their own side of the shared driveway. In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord said it had already taken the following steps:
1. it had visited the property and considered removing a hedge and paving slabs to create a wider parking space. This solution was not viable due to the placement of a fixed streetlamp.
2. it had offered to facilitate mediation between the resident and her neighbour, the resident had refused this.
3. it had offered to fund a mobility scooter storage unit at the front of the resident’s home. The resident had refused this.
The resident escalated her complaint on the 14 March 2024. On 18 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it upheld the stage 1 decision.
2. the parking space was big enough to accommodate 1 vehicle from each household. It said that the neighbour’s parking did not block access to the shared alleyway.
3. the resident had refused several possible proposed solutions as outlined in stage 1. She had also refused the landlord’s offer of marking a line exactly in the middle of the driveway to ensure the space was shared equally.
4. the local authority’s refuse team was able to access the bins.
5. the resident wants to store her mobility scooter at the back and drive it through the alleyway, there is not enough room at the front of the alleyway to facilitate this.
6. it reiterated the offer of the above possible solutions.
The resident contacted this service in June 2024 and April 2025. She provided reasons for refusing each of the landlord’s proposals. She said that any changes made to the front garden would impact the way it looks, reduce the household’s enjoyment of the garden and would impact her privacy. She said she was concerned that a mobility scooter storage space at the front could attract crime to the area.
She said that to resolve the issue, she wanted the landlord to either convert part of the neighbour’s front yard into a parking space, relocate their car parking space to a different space in the area, or move her own household to a different bungalow. She said the obstruction caused by the car:
1. limited accessibility, for example, for emergency services.
2. posed a safety hazard as it reduced visibility and increased the risk of accidents.
3. was inconvenient to the resident as it made things like getting deliveries and arranging waste collection more difficult.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told this Service that the actions of the landlord have led to a deterioration in the household’s mental health. When there is a pre-existing medical condition that has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medical report. This will usually set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
As a result, these matters are better suited to consideration by a court and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the parking.
The resident said there were parking issues with her neighbour over several years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from February 2023 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to February 2023 are made in this report to provide context.
The resident also raised new concerns with the landlord after it issued its stage 2 response. This included reports of ASB from the neighbouring property and a transfer request. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the issues raised in the resident’s complaint on 21 June 2023.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s parking

The tenancy agreement, signed by tenants of the landlord at the start of their tenancy, states that tenants must only park their cars in the parking area designated to them. It says that tenants must not park in such a way as to interfere with access to any adjoining or neighbouring properties.
The landlord’s neighbourhood and estate management policy states that it will work with customers and stakeholders to tackle parking issues on land it owns in its neighbourhoods. This includes irresponsible parking and parking related disputes. The policy says it will communicate to customers about landlord and customer responsibilities, issues customers have reported, and “how it has or is responding”.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines aids and adaptations as items of equipment or special fixtures and fittings, which may improve access to a resident’s home, improve a customer’s mobility in and around their home, or help with daily living. It states that the landlord will endeavour to:
1. provide clear information relating to the aids and adaptations process.
2. process and install all reasonable requests for minor aids and adaptations within published timescales.
3. meet all requests backed with an occupational therapist (OT) recommendation, unless on occasions budget does not permit, in which case it will inform the customer and endeavour to undertake the work as a priority the next year.
4. support and facilitate customers in obtaining suitable alternative housing where a transfer is considered to be the best provision in line with OT recommendations.
5. work wherever possible and/or relevant, in partnership with other agencies such as health authorities, commissioning bodies, or local authorities in order to meet authority-wide or sub-regional health/disability targets.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot assess whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Act.
The landlord’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy states that the landlord will have procedures in place to ensure its properties comply with its legal obligations to meet requirements arising from disability and other protected characteristics including aids and adaptations procedures for customers.
The resident raised the issue about the neighbour’s parking on 6 February 2023. The landlord attempted to telephone the resident 3 times on the same day but received the resident’s voicemail. This was an appropriate response from the landlord as it was taking a proactive approach to resolving the issue by responding quickly to the resident’s concerns.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord recorded a telephone call with the resident in which the resident said that the location of the neighbour’s parked car restricted room for her bins to be collected. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident several times about access for her bins and its position remained that there was sufficient room to put the bins out.
The landlord’s records show that it had previously had sight of the driveway and the allocated space for each vehicle. However, given that this was a new complaint from the resident about the parking, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have requested further information to satisfy itself that the position of the neighbour’s car was not in breach of the tenancy agreement.
During this call the resident also said the placement of the neighbour’s car prevented her from storing her mobility scooter at the back of the house and driving it out the alleyway. The landlord said that if the resident was willing to negotiate with the neighbour and allow them to park in front of her property, this could allow space for the mobility scooter to be driven down the alleyway. The landlord said the resident could not expect the neighbours to allow room for a mobility scooter to pass otherwise, as this would prevent the neighbours from parking in their allocated spot.
The landlord offered to facilitate mediation between the resident and her neighbour to try to negotiate a solution. The resident refused this. The landlord told the resident it was closing the complaint, asked her to re-consider her position on mediation and contact the landlord again if she changed her mind. The landlord’s offer of trying to find a solution via mediation was a reasonable attempt to work with the resident to resolve the dispute. This was in line with its neighbourhood and estate management policy.
Given that the reported issue concerned the resident’s mobility in and around her home and her concerns about risk of injury, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided clear information to the resident relating to possible aids and adaptations in line with its policies. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have advised the resident that any adaptations to the property to support her mobility, may require an OT assessment. This is because the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy shows that any adaptations considered by it often rely on the backing of an OT assessment.
On 20 April 2023 the resident raised the same issue about the neighbour’s parking. The landlord’s records show it telephoned her back on the same day but could not get through. The landlord’s attempt to telephone her on the same day to discuss her concerns was reasonable.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord and the resident had a telephone call about the same issue. The landlord re-iterated that the neighbour was entitled to park in their allocated parking spot and that it could not move the neighbours parking space. It re-offered the resident mediation, which was refused, and then closed the complaint. This was in line with its neighbourhood and estate management policy. It was fair of the landlord to communicate what its responsibilities were in line with its policies and procedures in order to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations.
On 22 May 2023 the resident raised the issue again. She said she had approached her local MP for support with her complaint. She said the neighbour was blocking access to the alleyway and she was now having to organise separate bin collections. The landlord telephoned the resident the next day but could not get through. That it responded to the resident in a timely manner was reasonable.
In response to the further issues raised, the landlord undertook a visit to the property on 7 June 2023. The outcome of the visit was that:
1. the resident confirmed there were no issues with the bin collection.
2. the resident had asked the neighbours to park further across, but the neighbours had refused on the basis that they needed room to be able to get in and out of their vehicle.
3. the landlord had suggested moving the concrete planters the resident had put in recently, which would allow more room for parking overall. The resident refused this.
4. the landlord suggested removing or reducing the size of the resident’s small picket fence. The resident refused this.
5. the landlord suggested mediation but both residents had refused this.
6. the landlord confirmed that it would be closing the case because it could not force the neighbours to park elsewhere. Their space was allocated, and it was satisfied the neighbours were not breaching their tenancy agreement by parking in it.
It was appropriate for the landlord to have visited the property and discussed these options with the resident in detail. The landlord showed that it explored possible solutions about the resident’s concerns for the mobility scooter access. This was despite the fact that it was satisfied the neighbour was not in breach of their tenancy agreement.
The meeting was also an example of the landlord trying to work with residents to tackle parking issues. In the meeting, the landlord confirmed its position and outlined what it could and could not do. This was in line with its neighbourhood and estate management policy.
However, given that the resident had raised the issue in February, March, April and May 2023, the landlord should have had regard to its obligations to meet requirements arising from disability and other protected characteristics in line with its policies and procedures. This includes consideration of its aids and adaptations procedures for the resident per its equality, diversity and inclusion policy. There is no evidence it assessed the risk to the household or discussed the resident’s accessibility in length with her before June 2023. The delay in discussing possible solutions with the resident was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident provided the landlord with a letter from her GP regarding the impact of the parking issue on the household’s health in September 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this letter. In failing to respond, it did not consider the impact to the resident and whether it should have regard to its responsibilities under its policies and procedures, which was not reasonable.
The landlord issued both its complaint responses in March 2024. It outlined the issue, said it had inspected the property and found that the neighbour’s parking was not in breach of their tenancy agreement. It re-offered several possible solutions to the resident including erecting a mobility scooter storage unit at the front of the property. This was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to work with the resident to resolve her parking dispute per the neighbourhood and estate management policy.
While the landlord took some steps to address the resident’s concerns, we have found failures in the landlord’s handling of the issue. In summary, the failings were:
1. although the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about the issue, it unreasonably delayed in assessing the risk to the resident, assessing the accessibility of the property in person and discussing reasonable adjustments to address the resident’s concerns about her safety.
2. the resident had known vulnerabilities, as outlined in the GP’s correspondence. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s correspondence provided by her GP relating to the parking issue. It would have been appropriate to have had regard to its responsibilities in accordance with its policies and procedures at an earlier stage.
3. the landlord did not discuss or provide information to the resident with reference to its aids and adaptations policy or its equality, diversity and inclusion policy, despite the substantive issue relating to the resident’s access to her home.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s parking. This is because there were failures by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these in its complaint responses. This is not in line with our dispute resolution principles of putting things right and learning from outcomes.
In recognition of the failures identified and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance. The resident continues to express concerns about the risk to the household posed by the neighbour’s parking. The landlord is also ordered meet with the resident to discuss the household’s safety getting in and out of the property with reference to its relevant policies and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Code.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2023. She wrote that she “would like to raise this complaint formally in accordance with the complaints procedure.” That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and she was cost further time and trouble in pursuing a formal response to the substantive issue. This was a failing when assessed against the Code.
In July 2023, the resident’s representative chased a response to her complaint. The landlord’s records show that it did not respond to the representative because it did not have authority to do so from the resident. Though it was appropriate to act cautiously in respect of the resident’s data, the landlord’s complaints policy says that complaints may be made by a representative on behalf of a customer. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have requested proof of authority from the resident or her representative on receipt of the representative’s enquiry. That it did not respond at all was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records show that the tenancy management team passed the resident’s complaint to the complaints team on 20 February 2024, which was 171 working days after the complaint was made. This was not appropriate.
The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter on 20 February 2024. It sent the stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement letter and the stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This was reasonable and in line with the complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord did not explicitly acknowledge the resident’s complaint point that the storage of her mobility scooter in her own hallway was a fire and safety risk, despite the resident raising this as part of her initial complaint to the landlord. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. it failed to open a stage 1 complaint in response to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction with the issue, which led to a significant delay in finalising the complaint.
2. it did not acknowledge the above failing, offer to put things right for the resident, or evidence learning from outcomes.
3. it did not respond to the resident’s representative to obtain authority to discuss the case.
4. it failed to specifically respond to the resident’s concern about fire safety.
With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling in this case. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident and address the resident’s point raised about the risk of fire safety and the household’s evacuation in the event of a fire.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her neighbour’s parking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a full apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £300 compensation broken down into:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident concerns about her neighbours parking.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified.
3. meet with the resident to discuss her concerns about the safety of the household relating to the parking issues and access to the property. This must include:
  1. a discussion of the resident’s concerns about the risk of fire safety and the household’s evacuation in the event of a fire.
  2. a discussion with the resident about her concerns of safely navigating in and out of the house. If required, this may include signposting the resident for additional support or information about an OT assessment, in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the discussion and provide this Service with a copy.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.