Clarion Housing Association Limited (202422633)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. He uses a wheelchair and crutches. After moving into the property in April 2024, the landlord created a disabled parking space within a set of shared bays. The resident then asked the landlord to create a disabled parking bay closer to his property. He was unhappy with its decision to not do so.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of concerns with the location of a parking bay.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns with the location of a parking bay.
   2. Reasonable redress offered in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of concerns with the location of a parking bay

4. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for an additional disabled bay.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged its delayed response. It offered a proportionate amount of compensation which combined with its apology, put right its failing.

Putting things right

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

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.

6. After the resident moved to the property, he asked the landlord to create a disabled parking bay. The landlord arranged this, creating a shared disabled bay within the parking bays it owns. While the resident was unhappy with its location, it explained it could not create a roadside bay closer to his property because the LA owned the roads. It also explained this was for shared use and not his own bay.
7. When the resident queried the landlord’s advice, it checked with the LA and satisfied itself that the information it shared was correct. The landlord has also provided evidence to us supporting this. We understand the resident was unhappy with the information the LA had given to him about the responsibility of a potential roadside bay. However, we cannot investigate how the LA responded. Instead, we have found the landlord responded appropriately to his concerns.
8. Part of the resident’s complaint included his concerns with the conduct of his NRO. He felt the landlord did not consider his disability when deciding not to create a roadside disabled bay for him. He said through various communication his NRO continued to tell him the landlord had housed him due to a risk of homelessness and not his disability, which he disputed.
9. The landlord confirmed the NRO gave the correct information. This is also seen in the evidence provided. However, it failed to consider that the resident’s priority need for homelessness assistance was due to his medical conditions. This did not impact its position regarding creating a roadside bay. However, by not clarifying this, it missed an opportunity to reassure him that it was aware of his vulnerabilities. It is therefore understandable that the resident raised concerns within his complaint about a lack of accurate information.
10. Additionally, the resident was also concerned with the NRO’s behaviour. We expect landlords to conduct a fair and objective investigation in response to such concerns. As explained above, it ensured the NRO’s advice was correct. However, it missed an opportunity to complete a full investigation into their general behaviour outside of this. The landlord should be mindful of its record keeping going forward. Nevertheless, it is positive that it considered and provided a response to the resident’s concerns. As such, this was a shortcoming in the circumstances of how it handled his concerns.
11. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s request for a disabled parking space appropriately. It created a shared disabled bay in a timely manner after he moved in. It also provided advice and support in contacting the LA to request a roadside disabled parking space. While we have found a shortcoming in how it considered the concerns with the NRO, there is no evidence to suggest this impacted the overall outcome for the resident. Considering this, we have found no maladministration.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
13. The landlord acknowledged failings in its complaint handling. While it acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy timescales, it then delayed responding at stage 1. It took a total of 21 working days to issue a formal response after acknowledging the complaint. This was 11 working days beyond its target timescale set out in the Code and its policy.
14. The delay, combined with the landlord’s lack of updates, meant it did not act in line with its policy or the Code. It also understandably caused the resident time and trouble when chasing twice for an update. However, it appropriately reflected on its poor handling and offered the resident £50 compensation. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not have an overall impact on the outcome. As such, this was a proportionate offer to put right its failing.
15. At stage 2, the landlord took 10 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request instead of 5. It appropriately apologised for this within the acknowledgement itself. This was good practice to show it had reflected on its complaint handling. There is no evidence to show that this minor delay caused any significant detriment to the resident. As such, we consider this was a shortcoming in its complaint handling in the circumstances. However, it should be mindful of responding to complaints in line with its policy and the Code going forward.

Learning

16. The landlord acted promptly to create a shared disabled bay and by checking its advice was correct after the resident raised concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord investigated the resident’s staff conduct concerns. However, it should ensure it maintains accurate records of its investigations going forward. This is also set out as a recommendation.

Communication

18. In line with the Code, the landlord should ensure it provides timely updates to residents about any complaint handling delays.