From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Notting Hill Genesis (202326386)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326386

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 April 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about parking on the estate.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat. The property is on an estate of 3 blocks with limited car parking spaces. The landlord does not own or manage the car park.
  2. From moving into the property on 1 September 2022, the resident parked in another property’s allocated parking space in an informal agreement with the landlord. Around February 2023, a new parking contractor took over the management of the car park. The resident began to receive parking fines, and the landlord told all residents on 25 May 2023 it would reimburse all parking fines up to that point. It told the resident she had no parking rights.
  3. The resident complained on 4 July 2023. She said the landlord informed her the property had allocated parking before moving in, she could continue to park in an allocated space and it would provide a parking permit. She said it had not paid her parking fine despite agreeing to do so. She said she found it difficult to park further away with her young children. She believed parking spaces were being unfairly allocated to leaseholders over social tenants.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It confirmed it did not control the car park and was not responsible for parking control. It said it could not promise to create a new parking space. It explained it would revoke the informal parking agreements it had made with her from 31 July. It also said it would clear all parking fines up to 21 June.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2023. She repeated her original concerns and asked the landlord to provide a parking permit and pay the fines. If it could not do this, she asked it to assist her with an immediate move.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2023. It apologised for misinforming the resident about parking after she moved in. It could allocate relinquished spaces, but there was “no possibility” of new parking bays. It agreed to reimburse parking fines from February 2023. It offered compensation of £350. This was £250 for providing misleading parking information and £100 for its delayed stage 2 response.
  7. The landlord wrote to all residents on 3 November 2023, setting out its priority list for allocating relinquished parking spaces. The landlord paid all the resident’s parking fines by 2 January 2024.
  8. The resident told the Service she wanted more compensation and a designated parking space. She said she would not have agreed to take the property if she was initially aware it had no parking available. She said she found it difficult to park in side streets and walk to her property with her children. The landlord has since agreed that the resident can transfer from the property. However, it has given no priority to the resident for this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.
  2. We have not therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move as this has not been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint nor have, we considered events after the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. Any concerns that resident has about the landlord’s handling of a request to move should be raised with it as a new formal complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking on the estate

  1. The landlord clearly managed the resident’s expectations in its complaint responses about management of the estate parking. It confirmed it did not manage the car park, and this was the responsibility of a parking management contractor. As such, it explained it could not alter the car parking spaces or create new spaces.
  2. In her initial complaint and escalation, the resident said the landlord’s housing officer told her prior to moving in that there was parking available at the property. She said they also told her she was ok to park in an allocated space until she received her parking allocation permit.
  3. The landlord appropriately addressed this point in its complaint responses. At stage 1, the landlord accepted that its housing officer had provided incorrect advice. It said the housing officer’s advice to use an allocated parking space and that they would provide one was “not within their power.” It reiterated this in its stage 2 response, confirming the housing officer had made a promise to the resident “without authority” and was no longer employed by the landlord.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said a new housing officer took over in June 2023. It confirmed their decision to honour the agreement for the resident to continue to park on the estate until 31 July was “misconceived.” It apologised for this and agreed it should have managed this better and sooner. It made clear that the resident had no allocated parking.
  5. The landlord said it reviewed the signup process and could see no evidence of offering parking. This is reflected in the resident handbook, which confirms that residents do not have rights to an individual car parking space unless confirmed in the tenancy agreement. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not confirm that a parking space is available for the property.
  6. The landlord clarified this further in its stage 2 complaint response. It explained that, when the estate was built, parking was allocated to leaseholders of the first two buildings built in phase one. It said the resident’s building was built in the second phase, and no car parking was allocated to any of the properties at that stage. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable to address residents’ concerns that it was prioritising leaseholders over social tenants.
  7. Conversely the resident later provided a copy of the original property advertisement, which showed parking was included. Given the landlord’s complaint explanations and the tenancy terms, the evidence suggests the advertisement was incorrect. When combined with the wrong advice from two housing officers this adds up to a failing. It does not, however, entitle the resident to a parking space she was not intended to have, as per her tenancy.
  8. In both her complaint and escalation, the resident asked for allocated parking. Although the landlord confirmed it could not create or amend parking spaces, it committed to reviewing the allocation of parking spaces in its final complaint response. Evidence shows it went on to do this on 3 November 2023, providing a priority list to all residents for it to allocate relinquished parking spaces.
  9. In both her complaint and escalation, the resident said she had several parking fines due to parking without an allocated space. In its stage 1 response, the landlord agreed to pay any parking fines up to 21 June 2023. After initial uncertainty it explained in its stage 2 response it would extend this period up to the end of October. In the circumstances of not being able to offer a permanent space and not controlling the parking itself, that was a pragmatic decision, albeit not an ideal one.
  10. The resident did provide evidence of further fines, and the landlord made payments to her on 14 December and 28 December to cover all fines. The landlord’s stage 2 response managed her expectations by confirming it would pay no fines accrued after the date of its stage 2 response. This was appropriate as the landlord had made it clear she would accrue further fines as she did not have an allocated parking space.
  11. We acknowledge the ongoing frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by no longer being able to park near the property. However, given that the resident was not entitled to a parking space, the landlord’s offer of compensation reasonably focused on the evident frustration and inconvenience caused to her by it providing misleading information.
  12. The landlord offered compensation of £250. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and the maximum its policy allowed. Its policy suggests its offer was equivalent to a serious failure over a period, causing a significant level of distress and inconvenience. This was proportionate to the failings identified.
  13. The landlord made clear in its responses that the resident had no parking rights on the estate. This is reflected in the tenancy agreement. It acknowledged it did initially misinform her about parking on the estate when she did not have an allocated space. The resident was able to park nearer to her home for an extended period. Although she did accrue parking fines as a result, the landlord paid these.
  14. The landlord offered proportionate compensation and apologised for the inconvenience it caused. It made clear it had no ability to create or amend the parking at the estate. It did however advise the resident of its allocation procedure for relinquished parking spaces and its priority list for this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking on the estate.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the sum of £250 that it previously offered to the resident as part of its final complaint response if it has not already paid this. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.