Southern Housing (202336216)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord acted unfairly by refusing to issue him a visitor’s parking permit and failed to address his concerns about non-residents using existing bays. He also complained that the landlord gave inaccurate information in its final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s parking queries.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in how the landlord handled:
      1. The resident’s parking queries.
      2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord suitably liaised with the parking management company to address the resident’s concerns about non-residents using parking bays. However, it delayed unreasonably in addressing his parking permit queries and did not acknowledge the full extent of this delay in its complaint responses.
6. The landlord delayed in acknowledging and issuing its complaint responses. While it has already offered appropriate compensation to put this right, it did not acknowledge that limited aspects of its complaint responses were not appropriately evidence-based as per our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

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 considered

7. The resident has indicated that he would like the landlord to rescind a parking ticket he says was unfairly issued by the parking management company. Our Scheme only allows us to consider complaints about the actions of social housing landlords. The parking ticket was issued by a private company with its own appeals procedure. Therefore, this aspect of his complaint is outside our jurisdiction to consider.

What we have considered

Visitor’s permit

8. The resident’s occupancy agreement does not set out any obligations on the landlord to provide individual or visitor’s parking permits, and parking permits are not included in the service charges. The resident pays a separate charge to the landlord to receive an annual parking permit.
9. The resident complained the landlord acted unfairly by declining to issue him a visitor’s permit so that his family member could park closer to his property. While we recognise the resident’s strength of feeling about this matter, the landlord was under no obligation or agreement to provide this.
10. The landlord was, however, responsible for addressing his queries meaningfully and within a reasonable timeframe. The resident complains that it failed to do so.
11. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised it did not offer visitor’s permits due to already limited spaces available for residents, which is a reasonable position. It acknowledged that it had not addressed the resident’s queries properly when he contacted it on 21 August 2023. However, it advised that it corrected this on 29 September 2023 when it contacted him and explained that its position.
12. The landlord’s contact records do not corroborate this. For example, records from 13 and 21 September 2023 note that the resident called to discuss parking, but offer no detail as to the content of these conversations. In fact, there is no evidence to show the landlord explained its position on visitor’s permits at any stage from August 2023 until its stage 1 response on 29 February 2024.
13. There is no justification within the records to explain why it took the landlord 5 months to meaningfully address this relatively straightforward query. In the absence of this evidence, we consider the delay was unreasonable. We also consider it likely caused the resident inconvenience in having to chase a response on multiple occasions over the 5 month period.
14. The landlord has already offered the resident £45 for poor communication from August 2023 to 29 September 2023. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have caused minor or short term impacts. Given the landlord has not acknowledged the full length of the delay post-September 2023, we have ordered it to pay a further £55 to bring the total sum to the top end of our scale.

Non-resident use of parking bays

15. The landlord is not responsible for policing the use of parking bays on the estate. It is, however, responsible for liaising with the parking management company to pass on concerns or queries raised by residents.
16. In his stage 2 escalation request the resident complained that non-residents were inappropriately using parking bays and that the landlord had failed to take any action. We can see the landlord referred his concerns to the parking management company on 17 April 2024. They assured the landlord that they patrolled the estate on a daily basis and had issued 181 tickets since the beginning of 2023. The landlord then accurately relayed this information to the resident in its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024.
17. Ultimately, it is unclear what further action the landlord could reasonably be expected to have taken to address these queries. It appropriately liaised with the parking company responsible for policing this issue, and relayed its response to the resident. This was proportionate and reasonable.

18. The landlord’s complaint handling policy obliges it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 10. It is required to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within the same time frame and respond within 20 working days. When it is not possible to meet these timeframes it is required to contact residents and provide updated timescales. This is in line with the timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The Code sets out that, when investigating complaints, landlords must consider all relevant evidence carefully to inform their decision. It also sets out that landlords must keep a full record of complaints at every stage.
20. We can see the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 October 2023. In future correspondence the landlord noted this as the date he first complained, and the resident does not dispute this. Therefore, we accept that the resident first complained at this stage. However, the landlord has not kept a record of this initial complaint. This is not in keeping with the Code.
21. We can see the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day which was within its timescales. It then requested extensions of 10 working days on 18 October, 1 November, and 15 November 2023. It failed to meet these extended timescales, and issued its response 63 working days beyond the timescale set out in the final extension email. This delay was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policy.
22. The resident raised a stage 2 escalation request on 29 February 2024. We can see the landlord contacted him to discuss his concerns on 5 March 2024. On 6 March 2024 the landlord noted he had requested a call and advised it had tried to contact him. The resident responded shortly after that he was now available. He followed this up on the same day and confirmed he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
23. He chased this request later in March 2023, and the landlord acknowledged a stage 2 escalation on 3 April 2024. This was 14 working days past its acknowledgement timescales. It then issued its response 12 working days past its timescales. We consider these delays cumulatively caused the resident to incur inconvenience in chasing complaint responses.
24. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response in part because he disputed the landlord’s position that its records showed it had addressed his queries about visitors permits on 29 September 2023. The landlord has no documented record of any such conversation. Therefore, the landlord’s final response did not accurately reflect the evidence available as per the Code.
25. The landlord has already acknowledged the complaint handling delays and offered a total of £150 compensation to put things right. This is at the higher end of what we would typically order to put right inconvenience caused by complaint handling failures. Therefore, we consider the landlord has already done enough to put this right.
26. However, it has not acknowledged the inaccurate information provided in its final response. For this reason, we have ordered that it reflects on the importance of evidence-based complaints responses and sets out how it will seek to avoid this type of omission in future.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping has room for improvement. For example, there is no record of the initial complaint, and no detail recorded within the call notes in September 2023. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of good record keeping, and how it might have more promptly resolved the complaint by doing so here.

Communication

28. The landlord’s communication has room for improvement. Of particular note was its failure to offer any further updates following its failure to meet the 3rd stage 1 extension it requested. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of meaningful and timely communication and how it might have mitigated the impact of ongoing delays on the resident by doing so. However, we note that it did well to clearly explain the reasons for its decision not to issue visitor’s permits in its final response.