One Housing Group Limited (202345367)

Background

1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. From December 2022 the resident reported parking issues including that cars were being parked outside the allotted parking spaces and on pavements.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of issues related to parking.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues related to parking in the area. This means we have upheld the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
5. We have found that there was service failure with the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took proportionate action to tackle the concerns the resident was raising. It followed the actions set out in its policies and procedures for the misuse of parking. The landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and tried to take action to address them specifically. For instance, it sent a letter to all neighbours in the block about parking, not just the individuals the resident had identified as causing the issue. This is an action the resident had requested. It also recognised and apologised for not sending out a letter to the resident’s neighbours when it said it would.
7. However, the landlord was slow to follow the actions set out in its policies and procedures. The landlord should have acted more quickly to tackle the resident’s concerns. While the landlord recognised part of its failings, it did not recognise it had committed to taking action in December 2022. This meant there was an 8-month delay from the resident raising concerns to the landlord taking direct action against the individual misusing parking.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to report issues with his neighbours. There is evidence that the situation escalated and the landlord treated these reports as anti-social behaviour. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can contact the landlord to discuss making a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied.
9. The resident reported issues with parking in the estate on or around 9 December 2022 and 15 May 2023. According to its Neighbourhood Policy and its Neighbourhood Management Procedure, the landlord should have acted quickly to tackle the issues. The policy and procedure mentions sending a letter and potentially visiting the neighbour that is being complained about. While the landlord mentioned to the resident that it would send a letter to his neighbour, it did not do this. There is no evidence that the landlord visited the neighbour. The landlord did not act quickly to tackle the issues the resident was raising. It did not follow its own policy or procedure for tackling concerns around the misuse of parking.
10. In its first complaint response on 30 August 2023, the landlord recognised that it had not sent the letter as promised in May 2023 and apologised to the resident. The landlord acted appropriately here, using its complaint process to recognise its mistake and offer an apology. However, it did not acknowledge that it had previously committed to do this on 9 December 2022. This significantly extends the amount of time the resident was waiting for the landlord to take action against the individuals who were misusing parking. It was a failing that the landlord did not identify this in its response to the resident.
11. The landlord committed to sending out the letter to the resident’s neighbours about parking on the estate. It sent out the letter as promised on 2 October 2023. This action was in line with its policy and procedure.
12. It also said it had contacted the neighbour who the resident had identified as the main culprit for the misuse of parking. The landlord left a voicemail for the neighbour, mentioning the issue and that it would be monitoring the situation. It was reasonable and proportionate of the landlord to attempt to call the neighbour, instead of visiting them directly. However, it is a shortcoming that it did not attempt to speak to the neighbour about the issue again.
13. In both of its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it was exploring parking enforcement options. It told the resident that it had been doing this since he raised concerns in May 2023. It explained what it was considering and why this was taking time. This shows that the landlord was taking action to try and prevent the nuisance that the resident was reporting to it. The landlord acted appropriately in doing this. Its Neighbourhood Policy says it may introduce parking enforcement schemes. The landlord’s actions here were in line with what is set out in its policy.
14. Through the complaint process, the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and tried to address them. The resident requested a letter be sent out to all neighbours about parking. The landlord sent out such a letter, explaining the parking restrictions it would be introducing and warning residents. The resident also requested the landlord address his neighbours feeding birds and the nuisance this caused him. The landlord included such a warning in the same letter. The landlord acted reasonably and proportionately when responding to the concerns the resident raised.
15. When escalating his complaint to stage 2, the resident said he had concerns that his neighbours parking on the pavement had damaged it. He believed the pavement had sunk and could have damaged a sewage pipe. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would arrange for the area to be inspected. We have not been provided evidence that this inspection took place. The landlord should have ensured this happened and updated the resident on this. There is no evidence the landlord followed the commitments it made in its stage 2 response.
16. The landlord did apologise to the resident for not sending out the letter to his neighbours when it said it would. It acted appropriately in recognising its failings. However, this was the second time it had committed to sending out the letter and not done so. We consider, given the landlord took 8 months to take direct action against the offenders, it should have awarded compensation, as well as an apology. Considering our guidance on remedies, we believe an appropriate level of compensation is £100. This recognises that it should have acted faster to address the resident’s concerns and recognise that it had committed to sending out the letter twice but had not done so. However, the landlord ultimately did carry out these actions. The resident was caused frustration by parking on the estate. However, beyond this, there is no evidence that there was a further impact on the resident in the timeframe considered in this report.

17. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 10 working days (complaint logged 15 August 2023 to response 30 August 2023). It followed its complaints policy here.
18. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in 20 working days (complaint logged 24 September 2023 to response 23 October 2023). It followed its complaints policy here also.
19. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the bollard that he raised in his escalation request. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord should have raised this as a new complaint. There is no evidence it did so. That was a failing and meant the resident had to chase the landlord and eventually submitted a new complaint for this matter. In line with our remedies guidance, £75 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by this failing. It is open to the resident to bring that complaint to us if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to it once he has completed its complaints procedure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. While there are no overall concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, there was not a clear record of when the resident first contacted them about his parking concerns in December 2022 and May 2023.

Communication

21. Overall the landlord communicated well with the resident throughout the complaint and called him to discuss the result of the complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2.