Summary: The Council was at fault for how it advertised Ms B’s property when she applied for a tenancy under the Council’s social housing scheme. It incorrectly said the property had a driveway. This has caused Ms B unexpected inconvenience when parking. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise her injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms B, is a Council tenant. She complains that, when advertising her current property, the Council said it has a driveway. It was only after she moved in that she realised the driveway was unauthorised and she could not use it.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated Ms B’s complaint about how the Council advertised her property under its social housing allocations scheme.
3. I have looked at whether the Council gave Ms B correct information about who would pay for a dropped kerb before she signed her tenancy agreement.
4. I have considered whether any injustice arose specifically from how the Council dealt with these matters.
5. I have not investigated anything the Council did after Ms B moved into the property, because from that point on its actions were those of Ms B’s landlord. This means they are outside our jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman has already dealt with these matters.
6. This decision statement does, however, include some brief details about what happened after Ms B moved into the property. These are included for background information only.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
9. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered information from Ms B and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

11. In July 2021 Ms B successfully applied for a tenancy in her current property. She did so through the Council’s social housing allocations scheme. The Council has confirmed that the advert for the property said it had a driveway.
12. Before the tenancy started, Ms B noted that there was a dropped kerb in front of the driveway, but it was not wide enough. She asked the Council if it would help with some or all of the cost of extending the dropped kerb.
13. The Council told Ms B that all applications for dropped kerbs would need to go through its highways department, and she would be responsible for all costs. It said it did not have a budget large enough to cover non-essential works. Ms B said that this would not be a ‘deal-breaker’.
14. Immediately before Ms B moved into the property, the Council told her she had permission (from its housing department) to complete works on the driveway. But it said:

The Housing Department will normally grant permission to tenants for … driveways, subject to permission of the Highway Authority being obtained for a [dropped kerb] directly in front of the proposed driveway … The construction of the [dropped kerb] must be completed and approved by the Highway Authority … the full cost of this work shall be borne by the tenant.

15. Ms B moved into the property shortly afterwards and applied to the Council’s highways department for an extension of the existing dropped kerb. But it told her the existing dropped kerb was unauthorised and therefore she would be committing an offence if she crossed the kerb and parked on the driveway. It told her it would cost her around £6,000 to complete the works necessary to make the driveway accessible.
16. Ms B complained about this, and the Council agreed to fund her application fee for a dropped kerb. However, it refused to pay towards the works themselves.

My findings

17. The Council was at fault for wrongly advertising that Ms B’s property has driveway. The incorrect information led Ms B, before moving in, to have a reasonable expectation that she would be able to park immediately in front of the property. She only found out after moving in that she could not park there.
18. This caused Ms B an injustice, because she now has to park elsewhere and walk to and from her car, which she did not know she would have to do beforehand. She has experienced unexpected inconvenience, which amounts to avoidable distress. The Council should provide her with a symbolic financial remedy to recognise this.
19. The Council gave Ms B the correct information about applying and paying for a dropped kerb before her tenancy started. She moved in knowing that, if a dropped kerb were to be installed (or extended), she would have to pay for it.
20. This means that there is no financial injustice to Ms B. Her injustice is simply that she is unable to park as near to her house as she expected.
21. Any later matters relating to Ms B’s complaints and requests for part-funding of the dropped kerb installation were covered by the Housing Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision statement, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £150 to Ms B to recognise that it incorrectly advertised that her property has a driveway, and that this has consequently caused her unexpected inconvenience when parking.
23. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has made this payment.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Council was at fault for how it advertised Ms B’s property when she applied for a tenancy under the Council’s social housing scheme. The agreed action remedies her injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman