Together Housing Association Limited (202301946)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301946

Together Housing Association Limited

14 February 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the car parking facilities and her request for a disabled parking space.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3 bedroomed mid-terrace house. The property is within a cul-de-sac where there is street parking and an area in front of multiple properties where cars can be parked.
  2. The resident is registered as disabled and uses an oxygen tank due to long-covid. The resident’s daughter has autism.
  3. Following an issue with the resident’s bins in the communal parking area in July 2022, she asked the landlord for her own disabled parking spot. The landlord investigated this and eventually agreed to supply a disabled parking sign, although it emphasised that the parking area did not have designated spots. It installed the sign on 7 November 2022.
  4. After the landlord erected the sign, a neighbour parked in the space and the resident reported this incident to it. The landlord responded to the resident on 9 November 2022, explaining that the car park did not have specific spaces for individual residents and that it was not able to police the parking area.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023. She was unhappy about the state of the car park and the lack of disabled parking. She also raised concerns about a subject access request (SAR) she had made, as well as about outstanding repairs.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 February 2023. It told the resident that it would be unable to tarmac the car park immediately due to the cost of the repair, but that it would be completing this as part of its 2023/2024 major works programme following consultation with residents. The landlord said that once it had completed this, it would consider designating her a parking space (this could not be done until the car park surface was improved). It also responded to her concerns about the outstanding repairs and her SAR.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 February 2023. She said she was happy for the repairs and SAR matters to remain at stage 1. She advised however that she wished to escalate her concerns about the parking space. She felt that the landlord had provided her with conflicting information and that it had not done enough to make reasonable adjustments for her.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2023. It said it had failed to pick up the remedial works it had earlier promised, and it would be sending out a contractor to complete this. It apologised for its internal communication failures. It emphasised that it was still going to be undertaking a consultation about completing the re–tarmacking of the car park. It added that, once this had been completed, it would look at how it could implement private parking spaces. On 28 March 2023 the landlord awarded the resident £480 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of these issues.
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023 saying she wished for us to consider her complaint against the landlord. She said the landlord had failed to provide her with a disabled parking space despite her requests and that it therefore did not make reasonable adjustments for her disabilities. She felt the landlord’s actions had been discriminatory and breached her tenancy agreement. To resolve her complaint, the resident has said she would like the landlord to provide her with her own private disabled car parking space.
  10. Since the resident brought her to complaint to the Ombudsman, there were further discussions in 2023 regarding major works, a dropped kerb and parking enforcement. The landlord’s information demonstrates that the car parking area has since been resurfaced with a parking bay allocated to each property. The landlord also said it had completed works to a nearby parking area to allow car parking space for visitors.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this Investigation

  1. The resident reported that the landlord did not act in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider if a landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to its equalities duties or to award damages as that is for the courts to determine. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the car parking facilities and her request for a disabled parking space

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include that a car parking space comes with the tenancy. The landlord does not have a policy that deals directly with car parking allocations. It makes mention of car parking facilities in its estates management policy in which it states it will ‘monitor the condition and use of communal car parks monthly ensuring these are swept and repaired as needed’.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy has 3 timescales for completing repairs. It says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days and minor works requiring bespoke materials or equipment within 63 days.
  3. The landlord also has an adaptations policy. It says that it will ‘ensure it makes any reasonable adjustments in relation to individual tenant requests in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010’. It goes on to say that under the Equality Act, ‘a reasonable adjustment is a requirement that public sector organisations have to make changes in their approach or provision to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else’. It notes that assessments of disability and needs will be made by an Occupational Therapist (OT).
  4. Prior to the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did speak with an OT who the resident had consulted. There was no direct recommendation made by the OT during the timescale of the complaint about the provision of a parking space.
  5. The OT advised the landlord following the stage 2 complaint response, on 24 March 2023, that the resident did not meet the criteria for a hard standing parking bay and that it had discharged this from its caseload. The landlord therefore did not fail to follow its adaptations policy. It communicated with relevant bodies but no direct recommendations were made to it about the provision of a car parking space for the resident.
  6. The landlord initially took informal steps to try and manage the resident’s parking concerns. This included putting a temporary sign up in November 2022, speaking with the resident’s neighbours about the parking issues and considering how to transform the parking area long-term. The landlord’s plans to improve the car parking area included retarmacking, following which it said it would assess the creation and allocation of individual parking spaces.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to try to find a solution which all parties were happy with. On several occasions, it took the opportunity to remind the resident that the agreement for her to park in the space she wished was informal and subject to the agreement of nearby neighbours. The landlord spoke with the resident and neighbours several times regarding their concerns about parking. It explained to the resident on a number of occasions that it would not be able to enforce or police the parking in this area. This was good practice from the landlord and it was important to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the nature of the agreement.
  8. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not provide her with a parking space as part of her tenancy. This means that the landlord does not therefore have a legal obligation based upon her occupation of the property to provide her with her own parking space. The surrounding properties are not all tenants of the landlord with some freeholders owning these. The landlord has also stated that a number of neighbouring properties also held blue disabled parking badges.
  9. The landlord therefore needed to ensure it was considering all of the properties affected by any changes fairly. Given the lack of legal obligation under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was entitled to apply discretion and decide its approach to parking. It considered the needs of all residents in the vicinity, including the resident, and made a decision to not immediately provide the resident a specific parking space. This appears to have been based upon its legal obligations and duties to all of residents who may have been affected by any changes.
  10. The landlord did, however, fail to provide the resident with correct information about its process for major works to the car parking area. It stated on numerous occasions there was a need to consult with leaseholders through the section 20 process. There were no leaseholders in the relevant area so the consultation the landlord described was unnecessary. The landlord continued to offer this incorrect information throughout the complaint process.
  11. The evidence available to the Ombudsman demonstrates that, following the complaint, the landlord provided the resident with the correct information. It has also completed retarmacking of the area and provided the resident with her own numbered parking space. Nevertheless, the landlord’s earlier provision of incorrect information likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  12. The landlord also told the resident that once it had completed the retarmacking, it would investigate providing spaces to individual residents. Given that it had no legal obligation at this time to provide such spaces, the landlord’s actions represented a resolution focused approach.
  13. The landlord recognised that there were failures in arranging the car park repairs. It did not raise the remedial repairs at the time it said it would. This work involved filling in potholes to alleviate problems whilst major works were pending. The landlord recognised this failing as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. It paid the resident £480 compensation in recognition of this following its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. It is unclear to the Ombudsman why the landlord did not offer this as part of the complaint response and only considered compensation following this. Nevertheless, the detriment to the resident was minimal given the compensation offer was made only a week after the complaints process ended.
  15. Nevertheless, the amount the landlord awarded was a reasonable offer of redress and in line with the compensation amounts the landlord would consider appropriate for failures of this type. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends figures in this range where there has been a failing by a landlord which has adversely affected a resident. The compensation was therefore proportionate for the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with car parking facilities and her request for a disabled parking space.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £480 compensation it offered in March 2023, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based upon this amount being paid to the resident.