Ongo Homes Limited (202329815)

Background

1. The resident has mobility issues due to a degenerative spinal disorder. In November 2023 the landlord told him that parking on the grass area at the front of his house was a breach of his tenancy agreement. The resident complained as he felt the landlord had not considered his disability. He asked it to consider reasonable adjustments to the driveway to accommodate his needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about parking and discrimination.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking and discrimination.
4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking and discrimination

5. The landlord addressed the parking issue in line with its policy and tenancy agreement obligations and demonstrated regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord’s initial refusal to respond to the resident’s complaint was not in line with its complaint policy or our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). Its overall complaint handling was unclear, and its complaint responses were significantly delayed. These failings caused the resident avoidable time and inconvenience.

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.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. In the resident’s complaint he said that the landlord had not taken his health conditions into account and noted that it had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. He also pointed out that a failure to do so would constitute discrimination and that he felt he had been treated unfairly. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and whether it had regard to its obligations under the Equality Act.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states residents cannot park on the grass verge outside their home. It states they can only park in an area intended for parking. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord considered the resident’s parking on the front grass a breach of its tenancy agreement, as this was not a designated parking area.
9. One of the aims of the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy is to resolve issues through early intervention. Therefore, if the landlord identifies an issue while on site, it must carry out early‑intervention actions, such as door‑knocking and speaking directly with individual(s) responsible for nuisance.
10. In this case, the landlord requested that an ASB case be opened after noticing the resident’s car parked on the front grass, and it appropriately requested a meeting with the resident. During the meeting with the landlord, and in emails over the following days, the resident told the landlord that he only parked on the front grass occasionally and did so because of mobility issues, which at times made it difficult for him to walk the distance to his front door.
11. It is clear the landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility issues. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states it will provide signposting information about the aids and adaptations process. It also states it cannot assess needs or make decisions about entitlement, as this is done by the relevant local authority and therapy services for the area.
12. On a number of occasions, including 24 and 29 November 2023, the landlord told the resident he would need an occupational therapy assessment regarding adaptations. It also provided information for contacting the local council. These were appropriate actions in line with its aids and adaptations policy. In addition, it demonstrated regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities and his request for reasonable adjustments.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy states any action it may take will be proportionate to the type of allegation. In an email to the landlord on 23 November 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with a ‘warning’ he had received for parking on the front grass. However, there is no evidence the landlord had issued a warning at this time. On 19 December 2023 the landlord stated it was “politely asking” the resident to stop parking on the front grass to prevent further action. It then again provided relevant reasonable adjustment signposting information.
14. This suggests the landlord took account of the resident’s mitigating health information at this stage when considering a potential tenancy breach. It is noted that the resident felt the landlord discriminated against him in in its approach to the parking issues. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord disputed that it had acted unfairly towards the resident. It specifically addressed his concerns about disability-related discrimination and detailed efforts it had made to support his reasonable adjustment request. This was reasonable, as the landlord’s responsibility is to signpost residents to relevant support.
15. Overall, the landlord demonstrated appropriate regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities as it acted in line with its policy requirements. It is the resident’s responsibility to secure the required medical assessment or approvals to progress a request.
16. Evidence on file suggests that the landlord may have included the parking issue in wider action against the resident for breach of tenancy obligations. There is no evidence available to confirm whether the resident persisted in parking on the front grass to support an escalation in action by the landlord. We cannot comment on the reasonableness of this action due to a lack of available related information. Given the resident’s reasonable adjustment request and documented health issues, it is recommended that any such action would be escalated in full consideration of the resident’s health concerns.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it had acted reasonably and fairly and had to balance the wellbeing of others also. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure residents abide by tenancy obligations and to maintain shared areas for all. While the resident’s dissatisfaction is understandable, the landlord took steps to help the resident secure any required reasonable adjustments. There is no evidence of specific formal action with regard to the parking issue. Considering this, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the parking issue.

18. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process, which was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
19. The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint of 23 November 2023, stating that the issues had already been addressed in previous complaint responses. Its complaint policy allows it to refuse escalation in such circumstances. However, although the resident had raised concerns about unfair treatment in both complaints, the landlord failed to identify that the issue in this case related to the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment over the parking issue. This was a failing.
20. The resident expended significant time and trouble in seeking our support and trying to obtain a complaint response. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in a stage 1 complaint response it issued in response to a different complaint. This approach was confusing. In addition, the response was not provided until June 2024, 7 months after the resident’s original complaint. This was an excessive delay, and there is no evidence of appropriate communication throughout this period.
21. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided reasons detailed reasons for its decision, in line with its complaint policy and the requirements of the Code. However, its stage 2 response dated 9 September 2024 only provided a general statement that it had acted reasonably and had considered the resident’s disability. It did not demonstrate  it independently investigated the resident’s complaint afresh at stage 2, which is a requirement of the Code. This was a failing.
22. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. Its initial refusal to provide a complaint response was unfair. Its responses were significantly delayed and its stage 2 lacked relevant detail. These failings caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £200 compensation. This amount reflects our remedies guidance for complaint handling failings that had a significant impact on the resident.

Learning

23. There were several complaint handling failings in this case. A recommendation has been made to help prevent future occurrences.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint as part of another complaint. As a result, its record keeping was unclear at times.

Communication

25. We have seen instances of informative and empathetic communication with the resident.