Hyde Housing Association Limited (202518346)

Background

1. The resident is elderly and has carers who visit daily. She lives in a 2 bedroom flat with a communal car park. The landlord has instructed a parking charge company to monitor the parking. They issue permits for residents and visitors to park at the site. During 2025, the parking company issued parking charge notices (PCNs) to the resident and her visitors. The resident was unhappy because she applied for permits for these vehicles.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Parking charge notices.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of parking charge notices.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s stage 1 response regarding the resident’s parking permit and the legitimacy of some of the PCNs issued. The landlord failed to address these in its stage 2 response. It also lacked empathy and did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. It was not fair, did not put things right, or show how it had learned from outcomes.
5. The landlord acknowledged and appropriately apologised for the delays in its complaint handling. Its offer of £100 compensation was reasonable and put things right in the circumstances.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we have not investigated

6. As part of her complaint to us, the resident asked that we order the landlord to cancel the PCNs issued to vehicle 1. We cannot dictate how a landlord manages its resources or order it to instruct a third party to act in a way outside of its direct control. We can assess whether the landlord has acted fairly when responding to the resident’s complaint and put right service failures where appropriate. The resident may wish to dispute the legitimacy of the PCNs with the parking contractor directly.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord has not disputed that the parking charge company incorrectly issued PCNs to vehicles 2 and 3 in 2025. It has appropriately cancelled these charges. The outstanding dispute is whether it managed the permit system correctly and if the landlord can or should cancel the outstanding PCNs.
8. The landlord has explained that the parking charge company manages the permit applications separately to the landlord. It does not have any agreement with the company to cancel PCNs. It owns the land used for the parking and contracts the parking charge company to manage the parking on the site.
9. In her contact with us, the resident said the issues began when the landlord introduced a new parking permit system. She had made efforts to comply with the system but was still issued with PCNs. These led to threatening letters from debt collectors and caused her considerable distress. She felt the landlord failed to consider her vulnerabilities or any reasonable adjustments that would have assisted her with managing her parking permit. The resident is elderly and reliant on carers. She said the changing system introduced additional barriers to her receiving care.
10. The landlord has passed responsibility for the management of the parking permits to the parking charge company. This does not absolve them of any responsibility to investigate when issues arise. As it owns the land and contracts this company to manage the parking on its behalf, it should retain proper oversight of its functions and consider if it is appropriately supporting its residents to use this system.
11. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she had received the PCNs despite having proper permits in place. The landlord did not use its stage 1 response effectively to investigate these concerns. It sought clarification from the parking charge company who said her permits related to another address. The address provided was more than 40 miles away from the resident’s. It did not conduct a proper investigation, question the validity of this information, or seek further clarity from the resident. Its response was therefore inaccurate and failed to resolve her complaint.
12. After the resident escalated her complaint on 26 June 2025, the landlord did conduct further investigation. Its records show it consulted with the parking company and clarified the location of her permits, when she applied, and which fines were valid. It received this information on 25 July 2025. This was 1 month later. It then issued its response on 30 July 2025.
13. The landlord improved its response at stage 2. It showed that it had properly investigated the PCNs and addressed some of the resident’s concerns. It was reasonable to address each PCN directly and clarified which were still outstanding.
14. However, its response was not empathetic to the resident’s circumstances. It did not fully consider the issues the resident had at the start of the process. She applied for her own permits in February 2025 but did not provide further detail when asked. She said this was because those documents were unavailable and she was not aware of the deadline at the time. There was apparently also a delay as an error was made in typing out the correct car registration. It was clear she was having trouble with the process.
15. The landlord did not demonstrate whether it considered if it could have provided any more assistance to the resident or given any advice or guidance to prevent further problems. This was despite the resident’s stated vulnerabilities and that its records showed “non-English language” and that she had a physical disability. There is no evidence that the landlord liaised with its parking contractor to consider these factors when deciding on the validity of the PCNs.
16. We found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the parking charge notices. The PCNs issued by the parking contractor on behalf of the landlord that are outstanding may be technically valid. However, we have found the landlord failed to properly address the inaccuracies within its stage 1 response to the resident at stage 2. It lacked empathy and did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, or her additional time and trouble as she pursued her complaint. It was not fair, did not put things right, or show how it had learned from these outcomes. It should pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble caused to her.

17. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. It says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue responses at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days.
18. The resident complained on 6 June 2025 using the landlord’s online portal. It acknowledged the complaint 7 working days later on 17 June 2025. It issued its response 7 working days later, on 26 June 2025. Although there was some delay in acknowledging the complaint, its response was within the timescales set out in its policy.
19. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 June 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 24 working days later, on 30 July 2025. This was 4 working days outside the timescales in its policy.
20. We found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the associated complaint. Its stage 2 response acknowledged that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy. It appropriately apologised for the delay and its offer of £100 compensation was in line with our remedies guidance for failings of a short duration and was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Parking management

21. The landlord should consider the impact on its vulnerable residents when making changes to how it manages its estates. In this case, the resident is elderly and has several vulnerabilities that may have led to some difficulty using the parking management system. It should be aware of these vulnerabilities and have processes in place to ensure appropriate support is in place to provide good service to its residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. Where there are conflicting reports from residents and its contractors, the landlord should give due diligence to clarifying its position before issuing a response.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication was direct and broadly addressed the key issues in this complaint. However, its approach lacked empathy as it did not show how it had considered the resident’s individual circumstances or the impact on her vulnerabilities.