Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

City of Westminster Council (202422062)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422062

City of Westminster Council

10 September 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:
    1. Request for a parking space and concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated 13 March 2008. The landlord is a local authority. He lives in an eighth-floor studio flat.
  2. The resident said he spoke with the Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) on 24 June 2024 and asked for a parking space in the private car park outside his building. He said it told him the car park was full as people not resident in his building had access to it.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord later the same day. He said more than half the spaces were always empty. He also said he believed he should have priority for a parking space over non-residents of the building.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 4 July 2024. It said although the car park might appear empty, all spaces had been allocated. It confirmed there was a waiting list, and it would contact the resident as soon as a space became available. It also said the council took over management of the car park from the resident management board over 3 years ago. Therefore, residents outside of the building could apply for a space and it could not give priority to residents.
  5. The resident said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 18 July 2024. He reiterated he believed spaces were available and he should have priority over non-residents. He said not all spaces were being used and wanted the landlord to review its parking list to check when people acquired a space and how many were in use.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 5 September 2024. It apologised that its stage 1 responses were not accurate. It said the waiting list was managed by the TMO. It also confirmed residents had priority over non-residents. It told the resident he had not been accepted onto the waiting list as his rent account was in arrears. It confirmed there were 67 spaces with 41 allocated and there were 7 residents on the waiting list and 39 non-residents on the waiting list. It offered compensation of £50 for the incorrect information in its stage 1 response and £50 for the delay providing its stage 2 response.
  7. The resident told us he is seeking action for the landlord providing incorrect information, confirmation of the correct procedure, an apology, compensation and a parking space.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In this case, the resident told us they had requested a parking space several times over many years. However, the complaint brought to us was raised with the landlord in June 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests from June 2023. We have decided not to consider the previous applications in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen.

Requests for a parking space and concerns about the allocation of parking spaces

  1. According to the landlord’s management of parking policy, anyone can request a parking space, and they are allocated on a priority basis followed by the date of the application. When a request is made, the landlord should check to see if there are any spaces available. If there are no spaces available, it should register the applicant on the waiting list and write to them confirming they have been registered.
  2. When a space becomes available, the landlord should contact the next person on the list and inform them that a space has become available. It should also check their property rent account and if it is in arrears, it should tell the resident the arrears must be cleared before allocating them a space. Failure to clear any arrears within a week will result in the space being offered to the next person on the list.
  3. The order of priority for allocating spaces is as follows:
    1. Registered disabled residents.
    2. Residents and their family members who do not already have a garage / parking permit.
    3. A carer for a resident requiring a parking facility.
    4. Residents who have a garage / parking permit and require another.
    5. Residents who do not have a garage / parking permit who do not live on the estate.
    6. Other residents in the borough.
    7. Staff where there is low resident demand.
    8. Commercial users and non-council residents.
  4. When the resident contacted the TMO on 24 June 2024 and asked for a parking space, it should have checked the availability of spaces and added him to the waiting list if none were available. It is unclear from the evidence provided how many spaces were available at that time, or if it added him to the waiting list. It is noted the resident’s rent account had an arrears balance of £510.08 on that date.
  5. When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response of 4 July 2024, it said all spaces were allocated but it would contact the resident as soon as a space became available. That suggests it had put him on the waiting list. However, it went on to incorrectly state it could not give priority to residents, which was inappropriate.
  6. When the landlord issued its final complaint response of 5 September 2024, it confirmed its stage 1 responses were not accurate and apologised. It correctly confirmed residents had priority over non-residents and it would only consider issuing spaces to non-residents if there were no residents on the waiting list. It went on to say it had not accepted the resident on the waiting list due to his rent arrears. It said it was a requirement for the waiting that residents did not have arrears, and they must maintain their rent account appropriately for at least 3 to 6 months.
  7. This information is not in line with the landlord’s management of parking policy. The policy states it should register the applicant on the waiting list when they make an application. It does not make any reference to rent arrears when adding an applicant to the waiting list. It also says when a space becomes available, if the resident has rent arrears, the landlord should give them the opportunity to clear the arrears within a week before passing the parking space to the next person on the list. The landlord therefore failed to follow its own procedure for the allocation of parking spaces.
  8. In its final complaint response, the landlord said there were 67 parking spaces with 41 allocated (meaning 26 were unallocated). This suggests the TMO gave incorrect information on 24 June 2024 about all spaces being allocated, and the landlord gave the same incorrect information again in its stage 1 complaint response, which is inappropriate. It went on to say there were 7 residents on the waiting list who would each receive a space, followed by 39 non-residents on the list who would be next in line. It is noted the resident’s rent account arrears balance had reduced to £90.48 at that time.
  9. If the landlord had followed its own policy and procedures, it should have added the resident to the waiting list and given him a week to clear the arrears of £90.48. Given the evidence that there were 26 unallocated spaces when it issued the final complaint response, it is likely that the resident would have secured a parking space at that time, had the landlord provided the correct information.
  10. When the landlord offered compensation in its final complaint response of 5 September 2024 it did not offer any resolution to the issue and gave further incorrect information. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s request for a parking space and concerns about the allocation of parking spaces. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such failings resulting in maladministration that delayed getting matters resolved.

The associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  2. When the resident raised his complaint of 24 June 2024 the landlord acknowledged it 4 days later on 28 June 2024. This was in line with the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy.
  3. When the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response of 4 July 2024, this was again within the timescales of the Code and the landlord’s own complaint policy.
  4. Following the resident’s escalation request of 18 July 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge the request until 15 August 2024. This was 20 working days later and significantly outside of the 5 working day timescale.
  5. The landlord then issued its final complaint response on 5 September 2024. This was within the required timescales from the date of its acknowledgement, but outside of a reasonable timescale from the date of the resident’s escalation request. It acknowledged service failures with its complaint handling process due to the delays providing the response and offered £50 compensation for that.
  6. In summary, the landlord delayed acknowledging the resident’s escalation request which in turn delayed it providing its final complaint response. However, it recognised its failings and offered the resident adequate resolution in its stage 2 decision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking space and concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Add the resident to the waiting list for a parking space and review his position on the list relative to the date order he initially requested a parking space.
    3. Pay the resident total compensation of £300 (less any amount the landlord has already paid), in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s request for a parking space and concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.
  2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation it had previously offered totalling £50 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle the associated complaint (if it has not done so already). The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.