Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202113388)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113388

LiveWest Homes Limited

21 January 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 queries regarding right of access to a nearby pathway. 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is an end of terrace house. There is a communal pathway accessible via a gate next to the resident’s front door. The pathway leads to the back gardens of several properties owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident initially raised concerns that the gate for the pathway banged when it was closed. She was also concerned that the pathway was being used by non-residents and children playing, which caused a nuisance. She asked the landlord to provide legal documentation which it had previously referred to, which outlined who would have access to the pathway.
  3. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord arranged for a digi-lock with a code to be placed on the gate. It shared the code with the resident and several neighbours. It also arranged for a rubber stopper to be installed so as to prevent the gate from banging against the resident’s external wall when opened. It provided the resident with the Title Deeds and land registry information for the property as requested. It confirmed that it owned the land and understood that no third party would need access to the pathway which was why it could install the digi-lock. It offered to pay for an hour of solicitor costs if the resident wanted to seek further legal advice on the documents it had provided.
  4. The landlord also explained that it could not restrict other tenants from allowing their friends, family and visitors access to their properties via the pathway and rear entrance to the gardens. It noted that restrictions would only be put in place if there were housing management concerns such as antisocial behaviour (ASB) or fly-tipping. The landlord also acknowledged that there had been service failure in respect of its complaint handling and offered the resident £200 compensation, which she accepted.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had provided conflicting information about who was allowed to access the communal path. It had also not provided information as to where in the land registry and title deed documents it stipulates the rights of access for the pathway. She noted that if the documents provided did not stipulate this information, the landlord had not provided the ‘legal document’ it had previously referred to when advising of the access rights for the pathway.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to interpret legal documents such as land registry documentation and title deeds, offer legal advice or decide who would be allowed right of access to the pathway. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s queries regarding access to the communal pathway.
  2. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to address the specific issues the resident was facing in relation to the gate banging and security concerns by arranging for a rubber stopper and digi-lock to be installed. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that reports of noise nuisance or ASB from specific neighbours could be handled in line with its ASB policy if there was evidence that the behaviour was ongoing.
  3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about who would be allowed access to the pathway, the landlord has explained that it did not have a policy which specifically detailed this information. It took reasonable steps to seek legal advice on this matter, and confirmed that it owned the land and it was its understanding that third parties (those with no association to the landlord or its residents) would not need access to the pathway as it was not a thoroughfare. This understanding allowed it to place the lock on the gate, preventing access to those not associated with the landlord or its residents.  It also provided the Title Deed and land registry documents to the resident on her request but confirmed that there was no specific detail about who would have access to the space.
  4. It is noted that the resident has expressed concern that the landlord had previously referred to a ‘legal document’ it needed to abide by when deciding who would be allowed right of access to the pathway. The landlord has satisfactorily explained that this was in relation to its understanding that no third party would need access to the space. It acted reasonably by offering to pay for a solicitor so that the resident could seek legal advice on the documents in question and its decision as it was not able to provide legal advice itself. It also confirmed that there were no other documents that would further clarify who would be allowed access, which was reasonable in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. As the landlord owns the land in question and neighbouring properties can be accessed from the pathway, it was reasonable for it to advise that residents and their visitors would be allowed access. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had offered conflicting information but it is noted that there had been some misunderstanding for which the landlord reasonably apologised. It is noted that the resident felt that visitors to neighbouring properties should not be allowed access, to which the landlord confirmed its position. It confirmed that it could not reasonably restrict access to visitors as the tenants had a right to use the space. It took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s concerns about ASB and noise nuisance on the pathway by confirming that it would only impose further restrictions if there were incidents such as ASB, noise nuisance or fly-tipping. As there were no current ongoing reports of these issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action.
  6. The landlord has demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and explain its position to her. It also acted appropriately by offering £200 compensation in view of the complaint handling service failures it had identified. As such, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries regarding right of access to a nearby pathway.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries regarding right of access to a nearby pathway.