| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Tenancy management |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Mr X had lived at No.13 for approximately 12 years. From the start of his tenancy his neighbour at No 14 allowed him unlimited access to the rear of his property via the passageway between their homes. When a new tenant moved into No 14 she refused to continue that practice and locked the wooden gate between their homes.
Mr X complained that he had been denied access to the rear of his home. He was concerned that this posed a health and safety risk in the event of a fire.
The landlord confirmed that as the passageway comprised part of No.14’s tenancy it was for her to decide if she wanted to grant Mr X access. She was not under any obligation to do so and the landlord could not grant him any right of access over another tenancy. It also confirmed that he could access the back of his home by walking through his house.
In response to Mr X’s concerns about exit in the event of a fire the landlord asked for the opinion of its Health and Safety Manager. She confirmed that locking the gate ‘does not contravene any health and safety requirements...In the event of a fire you are to exit…via your front door or by the back door where you will be able to wait in your own garden until help arrives’.
Determination
We found no maladministration. Mr X’s former neighbour chose to allow access to the passageway but the new tenant is equally entitled not to continue that practice; the landlord had no role in either of those decisions.
It could not grant him access over No.14’s tenancy because that would be an unlawful interference with the tenant’s rights under her tenancy agreement. Nonetheless, the landlord gave detailed consideration to Mr X’s concerns and obtained both legal and health and safety advice before responding to him.
Mr X asked us to review our determination as he believed that neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman had taken a commonsense approach to his concerns.
In our review we reiterated that our decision relied on the landlord’s recognition of the primacy of the rights of the tenant of No 14 under her tenancy agreement. We explained to Mr X that it would be grounds for severe criticism by the Ombudsman if the landlord had not focused on her legal rights.