Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202114274)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114274

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

15 March 2022


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 request for repairs to her driveway.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In an internal email, the landlord stated that a contractor had attended in April 2021 following a report of blocked drains. It noted that the blockage had been caused by mud from the front garden as “vehicles have been churning it up”. It said that the front garden fencing had been removed to create a “DIY driveway”. 
  3. The resident raised a complaint in August 2021. She stated she had reported the poor condition of her driveway several times to the landlord, but it had disputed that it had installed the driveway, stating it was “a DIY job”. She said there was no alternative on–street parking and the pathway next to the drive floods, was very muddy, and was a trip hazard.
  4. In the landlord’s stage one response, it said it had inspected the garden area twice and checked the property records which confirmed the driveway had been installed without its permission, so it was not responsible for any repairs to it. The resident disputed that she had installed the driveway and provided evidence to support her claim. She repeated her concerns about a lack of parking, and said she could not afford to install a drive and did not think she should have to as the previous tenant left the drive in a poor condition.
  5. The landlord sent its second complaint response in September 2021. It accepted that the driveway was present at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy. It acknowledged the resident’s parking concerns, but explained that the front garden could not be classed as a driveway, and approval had not been given for it to be used as such. It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £300 towards the installation of hardstanding (a driveway or paved area intended for parking), subject to the resident receiving the landlord’s approval of the standard of work. It said that, alternatively, it would reinstate the garden to its original condition and offer £100 towards garden improvements, subject to the resident agreeing to no longer use the garden for parking.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decisions. She said she had received quotes for installing a hardstanding drive that exceeded £1000, which she did not feel she should be responsible for. She said the driveway was the main reason she had accepted the property; there is no evidence to suggest she raised this issue with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. Under the property description held by the landlord for the resident’s property, it is noted there is “highway parking” and not a driveway. The landlord acknowledged that the previous tenant installed the driveway, rather than the resident, so therefore it was appropriate for it to acknowledge her concerns. However, to install a hardstanding driveway would be considered an improvement, which the landlord would not be obliged to do. It is clear that the condition of the driveway, and the landlord’s initial assertion that the resident had installed it, was frustrating to the resident. The landlord acknowledged this through its complaint resolution offers.  
  2. The landlord used its discretion to offer £300 towards the installation cost of the driveway. It is clear that it considered the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of on street parking, and the frustration caused when she was informed that the garden was not intended to be used as a driveway, as the previous tenant had made such adjustments. As the landlord is not responsible for making improvements, this offer exceeded its obligations. The landlord said alternatively, it would reinstate the garden into its original condition, providing she agreed to no longer use the area for parking. This offer was reasonable, as the tenancy agreement states the resident must not park a vehicle anywhere on the property unless there is hardstanding. Although the landlord is not obliged to carry out repairs on improvements made by tenants, in this case as the driveway was not installed by the resident, the offer to reinstate the garden was appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.