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

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited (202315208)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315208

Wythenshawe Community Housing Group Limited

26 February 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 response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s driveway.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2006. The property is a ground floor cottage with its own front entrance door, on the side of building. The neighbour lives in the property above and also has their own front entrance door, on the front of the building. The resident’s property has windows at the front, which overlook the front garden.
  2. On 18 September 2022 the resident told the landlord he was concerned that the neighbour wanted to install a driveway in the front garden. They drove a large van so the noise and lights would go in to the property and disturb him. He did not agree to this being installed and said the landlord should have asked his opinion. Later that month, the landlord spoke to the resident about his concerns and made internal enquiries about whether the neighbour could install the driveway.
  3. On 20 February 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said he did not want the driveway in front of his bedroom window, but the neighbour had started the works. He had called earlier that month but had not received a call back.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 March 2023 it said it had given the neighbour permission to install a driveway and confirmed the reasons for this. It detailed the conditions the neighbour had agreed to when using the driveway. It acknowledged that it had failed to call the resident back earlier that month due to a human error, and it apologised and said internal feedback had been given.
  5. Five days later, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said the driveway was in front of his window, but he had been told by the landlord it would not be. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 28 March 2023 it apologised for the lack of communication about the issue. It said it would speak to the neighbour and arrange for a white line to be painted on the driveway to define the parking space. This would ensure the vehicle did not block the resident’s bedroom window.
  6. Two days later, the resident suggested another fence post could be installed to define the parking space, rather than painting a white line. The landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour about this and a post was installed on 7 May 2023. The same day, the resident said the post had not been installed as agreed. This meant the neighbour’s van was still parking in front of his window. The landlord visited the resident in May and June 2023. On both occasions it concluded no further works were needed. It was satisfied the neighbour was keeping to the agreement not to park in full view of the resident’s windows.
  7. On 23 June 2023, the resident said he was still unhappy about the driveway. He asked the landlord to send a written update confirming its position on this and the landlord did so in early July 2023. It said the matter was resolved and it had followed its policies and procedures. Later that month, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint concluded the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 28 March 2023. In early July 2023, the landlord sent a written update to the resident setting out the actions it had taken since the stage 2 response, and assessed its handling of the matter during this period. We will not investigate matters that have not been assessed via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, as the landlord has done a further assessment of its handling of this matter up until 7 July 2023, we have done the same.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s driveway

  1. The resident first raised concerns about the neighbour installing a driveway in September 2022. The landlord spoke to him and made internal enquiries, but there is no evidence it followed up to let him know the outcome. This meant the resident did not know the landlord had given permission for the neighbour to install the driveway until works started in February 2023. This was a communication failure which left the resident feeling ignored and amounts to maladministration.
  2. The resident said, in September 2022, that the landlord should have asked for his opinion about the driveway before any agreement was made. The landlord was not obliged to get the resident’s consent before agreeing the driveway installation. However, as his windows overlooked the front garden area, it would have been courteous of the landlord to make him aware of the neighbour’s request. It did not do that, which left the resident feeling that the landlord did not care about how this could affect him.
  3. Before the driveway was installed, the resident raised concerns about the neighbour’s vehicle disturbing him due to the lights and noise coming through his windows. These were understandable concerns and ones which the landlord should have addressed with the neighbour before it gave consent for the driveway installation.
  4. It is important that, where possible, landlords are proactive in addressing any potential issues that could lead to neighbour disputes. The landlord did not do that in this case and waited until after the driveway had been installed, and the resident had raised a complaint, before it addressed his concerns with the neighbour. This delay amounts to maladministration. The resident subsequently reported a verbal altercation between his son and the neighbour that happened at the end of April 2023. There is no evidence this was linked to the driveway issues but the resident believes this to be the case, which was upsetting for him.
  5. The landlord told the resident it had given the neighbour permission to install the driveway because the council had already given permission and installed a dropped kerb. It had also given permission for other residents living in the same type of property to install driveways, and it had installed driveways in the area. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision to approve the neighbour’s request to install a driveway was reasonable.
  6. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said the neighbour had agreed to 4 conditions regarding the use of the driveway. This included leaving the driveway once the vehicle had been started, turning the headlights off when driving on to the driveway and leaving enough space between the vehicle and the pathway to exit the garden area safely. Considering the position of the driveway in relation to the resident’s property and the concerns he had raised, the conditions agreed were sensible and took in to account his specific reservations.
  7. The resident has told us that the landlord assured him the neighbour’s driveway would not be in front of his window. We do not doubt the resident’s comment, but have seen no evidence that the landlord gave this assurance. It is a reality that residential properties can have driveways or other outside spaces directly outside them, that do not belong to them and are used by other residents. In these circumstances, we would expect landlords to take reasonable steps to minimise any disruption and support residents to live harmoniously with their neighbours.
  8. When the resident raised concerns about the neighbour’s van parking in front of his window in March 2023, the landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour to arrange further action to address this (painting a white line). This was sensible and showed that it took the resident’s concern seriously. When the resident suggested an alternative solution (installing an additional fence post), the landlord agreed to speak to the neighbour about this. This showed it was being flexible in its approach and wanted to find a resolution that the resident was happy with.
  9. When the resident raised concerns about the additional post installed on 7 May 2023, the landlord did not respond to him until nearly 2 weeks later and only after he had chased on at least one occasion. This was disappointing for him and left him feeling that the landlord no longer cared about the issue.
  10. After the landlord responded, it agreed to visit the resident on 22 May 2023. This was sensible so it could look at the fence post and make an assessment. It acknowledged the post had not been installed as agreed, but noted this was so the neighbour had enough space to reverse their van safely on to the drive. Based on this, it was reasonable that the landlord said it would not ask the neighbour to move the post. It also concluded it was no longer necessary to paint the white line since the post had been installed. This was, again reasonable, as the post had adequately defined the width of the parking space.
  11. During the visit in May 2023, the landlord said it saw the neighbour returning home and parking their van on the driveway. It noted the van was parked as agreed, not in full view of the resident’s window, and he confirmed this was how the neighbour usually parked. Based on this, the landlord said it was satisfied the neighbour was complying with the resident’s request not to park near his window and that no further works were needed. This was a change to its previous position, however, based on the new information gathered, this was a reasonable conclusion.
  12. As the landlord’s position on this matter had changed it should have followed up after the visit and confirmed this writing. It is best practice for landlords to confirm any decisions in writing, particularly where this relates to actions it will or will not take. This ensures all parties are aware of what has been agreed and reduces the chance of confusion or misunderstanding.
  13. The landlord did not do that in this case until around 6 weeks later and only after at least 3 more contacts from the resident seeking clarity on the issue. This amounts to maladministration and left him feeling uncertain on what was happening. This uncertainty meant he incurred time and trouble to clarify the landlord’s position, when it should have proactively told him this.
  14. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it had agreed to remove a section of a grass verge at the front of the property to allow the resident’s son to park closer to the property when visiting. The landlord noted that, during the visit in May 2023, the resident agreed for this work not to go ahead as his son could park his car in front of the property now that the fence had been extended. The landlord has told us that, because of this, it did not progress the works. This was reasonable; however, the resident told us in March 2024 that this work was still outstanding.
  15. The landlord confirmed its position in writing regarding the driveway in early July 2023, but it did not make reference to these works, which it should have done. Its failure to do so meant the resident was unclear on what actions the landlord would be taking and he expected further works to be carried out. The landlord has not done these works and this has left the resident feeling let down. This amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to write to the resident confirming what, if any, works it will do to the grass verge, with a timescale for these to be completed.
  16. In an email dated 23 June 2023 the resident raised concerns about specific comments made by a member of staff that had visited him previously. When the landlord responded in early July 2023 it gave clarity on what the member of staff had meant by the comments made. We cannot determine the meaning of individual comments made by landlord staff. However, as the landlord addressed the resident’s specific concerns and provided context to them, this was a reasonable response and showed it had taken the matter seriously.
  17. In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of this matter, including a missed callback in February 2023 and a lack of updates. It apologised and identified learning. However, there is no evidence that it considered any other form of redress for the resident, which it should have done in order to fully put things right for him (in line with our dispute resolution principles).
  18. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s driveway. While its decisions and conclusions were reasonable, there were failures in its communication and overall handling of the resident’s concerns. In consultation with our remedies guidance the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.
  19. The resident has told us in recent contact that this matter is ongoing. He said the neighbour is still parking in front of his window and he has reported this to the landlord many times. We are not making a determination on the landlord’s more recent handling of this issue. However, to ensure the resident is clear on the landlord’s current position, an order is made for the landlord to write to the resident setting this out and confirming what, if any, further action it will take.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 23 February 2023, 3 working days after the resident made the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. As this was 1 working day late, this was only a minor delay and not a failure by the landlord. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023, 9 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was within the committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 14 March 2023, 1 working day after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was within the 2 working day committed timeframe for acknowledgements, set out in its complaints policy at the time. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 28 March 2023, 10 working days after it had escalated the complaint. This was in line with the committed response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said stage 1 complaints would be investigated by managers. In this case, the stage 1 complaint was investigated by a senior property surveyor. It is not clear if they were a manager, however, as they were a senior surveyor, the decision for them to investigate the complaint was in line with the landlord’s policy. However, the surveyor had dealt with the neighbour’s application to install the driveway and been involved in the decision making in respect of this. Therefore, they should not have had any involvement in the complaint investigation.
  4. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said that complaint handler’s must act independently and with an open mind and take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest. As the senior surveyor had been involved in the original decision making, there was a perceived conflict of interest in them investigating the complaint. The resident has raised this concern with us and while we have seen no evidence that the member of staff did not investigate the stage 1 complaint with an open mind, it is understandable that the resident was concerned about this.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint did not comply with the Code and this amounts to service failure. In consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay him £50 compensation. A further order is made for the landlord to deliver training to complaint handling staff on the importance of impartial complaint investigations, in line with our Code. We will consider this order complied with if the landlord can show it has delivered training of this nature within the last 12 months.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s driveway.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident confirming what, if any, works it will do to the grass verge, with a timescale for these to be completed.
    2. Paid the resident £250 compensation, made up of £200 for its response to his concerns about the driveway and £50 for complaint handling.
    3. Written to the resident setting out its current position regarding the neighbour’s driveway and what, if any, further action it will take in response to his concerns.
    4. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to deliver training to complaint handling staff on the importance of impartial complaint investigations, in line with our Code. We will consider this order complied with, if the landlord can show it has delivered training of this nature, within the last 12 months. Evidence of compliance to be provided within 8 weeks.