The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202006019)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006019

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 May 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an obstruction on her driveway.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a semi‑detached house with a driveway that is shared with the resident’s neighbour.
  2. On 22 June 2020 the resident called the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction that her neighbour had placed planter boxes in the centre of the shared driveway. She said that these were obstructing her ability to open her car door to get her young daughter in and out of the car. She added that her neighbour’s brother had become abusive when she had asked for these to be moved. The landlord confirmed that it would need to visit to examine the planters and advised the resident to use another car door in the meantime. The resident explained that she was insured to park on her driveway. The landlord confirmed that she could still park on the driveway, as it was only the opening of the car doors at the back which was the issue.
  3. The landlord called the resident’s neighbour on the same day and explained that as it was a shared drive, they could not place anything that might cause an obstruction.
  4. The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2020 and explained that it had visited the property and sought legal advice. It confirmed that the planters did not break any rules regarding the boundary and was not going to ask the neighbour to move these. It explained that whilst the planters were inconvenient, the drive was fully useable and if the resident wanted to make more room, she could remove the fence to the right of her car. It said that this was a neighbour dispute and agreed that it would have been helpful for the neighbour to inform her of the work before it went ahead. It offered the resident mediation and asked her to consider this. It confirmed that this was as much as it could do regarding this issue.
  5. On 13 July 2020 the resident raised a complaint regarding the planter boxes. She expressed dissatisfaction that her neighbour had been granted permission by the landlord to erect the planter boxes on the shared drive. She said that her tenancy agreement stated that there should be no obstructions on the driveway. She said that she could no longer open her car door on the driveway nor access her car safely with the planters and she had not been informed that the planters were going to be placed. She was unhappy that the landlord had not complied with the tenancy agreement and added that she had to pay additional fees on her car insurance to allow her to park on the street.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 July 2020 and said it would provide a response within ten working days. It communicated with the resident on a number of occasions between 3 and 25 August 2020 explaining that its response was taking longer than expected to complete as it needed to wait for information to be supplied by the local authority. During this time the resident agreed to mediation and also submitted a request to place a fence down the middle of the shared driveway.
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 August 2020 and explained the following:
    1. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide a response and said that there had been a delay as it had to wait for the local authority to provide some information on planning restrictions.
    2. It explained that it was unable to take enforcement action to make her neighbour remove the planters from the driveway as planter boxes did not require planning permission. It understood that the resident could still use the driveway, albeit with less room. It agreed that her neighbour should have informed her prior to placing the planters, but it had no legal basis for pursuing legal action against her neighbour in relation to removing the planters.
    3. It noted that the resident had submitted an alteration permission request to install a fence down the middle of the driveway and to fit a gate. It confirmed that she would receive communication about this shortly.
    4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of this matter. It had tried to resolve the issue; however, it was unable to force the resident’s neighbour to move the planters. Due to data protection it was unable to disclose any details of the conversations it had with the neighbour but believed it would be beneficial for this to be resolved together and offered mediation.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 September 2020 and maintained her position that there should be no obstruction on the shared driveway. She said that her tenancy agreement confirmed that there should be no obstruction which might cause upset to neighbours. She said that the planters had caused damage to her husband’s car when the door was opened and asked who would be liable for this damage.
  9. On 7 September 2020 the landlord confirmed that it would complete a stage two review of the resident’s complaint and provide a response by 5 October 2020. 
  10. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 2 October 2020 and explained the following:
    1. It confirmed that the local authority had stated that the planters did not contravene any planning laws, nor was the neighbour required to seek planning permission in order to place these. Its legal team had confirmed that there were no restrictions in the title deeds for the two properties that would prevent planters being placed on the drive.
    2. It had inspected the driveway on 15 September 2020 and found that the neighbour’s side of the drive measured at 1.999m, and the resident’s measured at 2.23m. It concluded that the planters were located on the neighbour’s side of the driveway and not infringing on her 2.23m. Taking all the above into consideration, it said that it was unable to enforce the removal or relocation of the planters.
    3. It acknowledged that there had been some miscommunication around the inspection that took place on 15 September 2020 and the resident had been led to believe that this visit was to inspect the planter boxes. The surveyor who attended had said that they would not have given her neighbour permission to install the planters. The landlord explained that the inspection was related to the resident’s request to erect a fence although there had been a misunderstanding. It said that the surveyor was not in a position to make such a statement and it had discussed this matter internally. It apologised for any inconvenience to the resident.
    4. It noted that the resident expressed concern that her neighbour had not had to ask for permission for the planter boxes to be erected but she had needed to seek written permission to install a fence. It confirmed that the resident needed to seek written permission in line with her tenancy agreement.
    5. It noted the resident’s concerns about damage caused to the driveway by the planters being fixed to the ground. It said that it had investigated this and had confirmed that the planters were not fixed to the driveway in this case. The landlord also confirmed that it would not be liable for any damage to her husband’s car.
    6. The landlord acknowledged that although its stage one complaint response was not issued within ten working days, it had kept the resident updated with its progress and a thorough investigation had been completed. It confirmed that the information which was previously provided was correct. It was satisfied that it had not treated the resident differently to her neighbour given the information provided at the time of the permission request and could not uphold the complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy handbook confirms that a resident would need to seek written permission before making changes or alterations to the property. It also states that a resident would need to seek permission before erecting extra fencing as this might require planning permission. It is not disputed that a resident should not place any object which may cause an obstruction to others on the shared driveway.
  2. In this case, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s report of an obstruction on her shared driveway. It has provided evidence which shows that it had sought legal advice on this matter as well as advice from the local authority about whether planning permission would be required for the planter boxes. It found that the planter boxes did not require planning permission and that there was no legal requirement for these to be removed or relocated.
  3. On establishing this information, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s claim in person, and found that the planter boxes were placed on the neighbour’s side of the shared driveway. The landlord did not consider the planters to be an obstruction as the resident was still able to park her car on her side of the driveway, and therefore there had been no breach of the tenancy agreement.
  4. It is understandable that the resident might have found it frustrating that she now had less space in which to park her car, but ultimately the planters were situated on the neighbour’s side of the driveway. These same space limitations might also have occurred if the neighbour had decided to park a vehicle on their side of the driveway, which would also have been reasonable. The planters did not prevent the resident from parking on her side of the drive and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to ask for the neighbour to move them.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by confirming its limitations and explaining that it could not enforce the removal or relocation of the planters. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident and her neighbour to resolve this matter between themselves and it offered mediation in an attempt to aid the resolution. Mediation is voluntary and either party was entitled to decline; however, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation as it can be helpful in resolving some neighbour disputes.
  6. The resident expressed concern that she had needed to write to the landlord to seek permission in order to erect a fence on the driveway, but her neighbour did not have to in order to place the planters. In line with the Tenancy Handbook, the resident would need to seek written permission for any. The landlord has confirmed that the neighbour would not have needed to seek written permission to place the planters, which was reasonable as it has confirmed that these were not fixed in place or a permanent alteration to the drive. A fence would be a more permanent structure and planning permission from the local authority might be required. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was treated unfairly by needing to write to request permission before erecting a fence.
  7. It is clear that the resident has found the placement of the planters to be distressing and has expressed concern over who would be liable for any damage to her vehicles. Ultimately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability of any damage to vehicles, the resident would be advised to contact her insurance company for more information on this matter.
  8. In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect of its handling of the resident’s report of an obstruction on her driveway caused by her neighbour.  The landlord has completed a full investigation and found that the planters are placed on the neighbour’s side of the driveway and that it had no power to enforce the removal or relocation of the planter boxes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of an obstruction on her driveway.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has shown that it has investigated this matter and found that it had no power to enforce the removal or relocation of the planter boxes. It explained its reasons to the resident and confirmed that the planter boxes did not constitute an obstruction. It offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour, should they wish to attempt to resolve this matter between themselves.