Anchor Hanover Group (202206059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206059

Anchor Hanover Group

22 February 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to its contracted parking company wrongly issuing parking tickets to the resident.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 1 March 2010. The property is a one-bedroom terraced bungalow with parking for residents outside. It is close to a primary school.
The landlord provides “specialist housing for those in later life”. The resident’s property is located on a private road where public parking is not permitted.
The tenancy agreement, which sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant, states that the tenant agrees “not to use any parking space for any purpose except for parking a roadworthy private car or motorcycle belonging to the tenant, and not to use more than one parking space at any one time except with [the landlord’s] written consent” (section 4.15). The landlord’s tenant handbook confirms that residents are free to park their cars in the parking spaces at their property, and where there is insufficient parking available the landlord may develop a local parking policy.
The landlord’s car parking policy notes that where the policy fails to address a car parking issue, managers may consult with residents on the implementation of a local car parking policy. Its local solution guidance on car parking recommends use of an external car parking company as one of several ‘first steps’ to addressing parking issues, alongside other tools such as signage, permits and physical barriers. The guidance says that an external company may “monitor the car park and charge non-residents/visitors to the location”, and that this may be particularly appropriate if the public are using the car park to visit other nearby sites.
The landlord’s complaints policy adopts the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint, namely: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of a service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the tenant handbook states that it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day, contact the complainant within two working days, and respond within 14 calendar days. At stage two, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within one working day and respond within 14 calendar days. Stage two complaints are reviewed by “a more senior member of staff”.

Summary of events

On 21 and 23 March 2022, the resident received letters from a parking company contracted by the landlord. The letters referred to incidents on 14 and 16 February 2022 when parking charges were issued in respect of the resident’s vehicle. On both occasions, the resident’s vehicle was legitimately parked near to his property at the time.
The resident complained to the landlord on 26 March 2022, and sent his complaint again on 30 March 2022. He said that:
1. He had received two parking charges in the post, and had appealed both.
2. He was “subject to threats” from the parking company to pay £100, which may rise to £160, and this was causing him great distress.
3. He was concerned about the possible impact on his credit rating.
4. He had provided his vehicle registration number to the landlord in September 2021, and had followed this up by telephone.
5. There were issues with the parking tickets:
  1. The letters said notices were affixed to his vehicle at the time, but nothing was affixed (the enclosed photographs also showed nothing affixed).
  2. There was a discrepancy between the appeal timeframe referred to in the parking company’s letters, and that referred to online.
  3. The parking company had obtained the resident’s details from the DVLA, and these confirmed that the resident lived on the street in question and was entitled to park there.
6. The scheme was proving to be ineffective because:
  1. It was not meeting its main objective of addressing parking at school times.
  2. The six-week delay between issuing a ticket and writing to the recipient would not deter unauthorised parkers quickly enough.
7. He wanted the charges to be cancelled, the cancellation to be confirmed in writing, a written apology, and compensation.
In a further email on 30 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that he was seeking the following outcomes:
1. Cancellation of all parking tickets, including the two he had already received and any he was yet to be informed about.
2. Confirmation that he would never again receive a parking ticket for parking his vehicle on his street.
3. An explanation of how the error had come about.
4. Information about who was to blame.
5. A written apology from a senior member of staff.
6. An explanation as to why his vehicle registration number contained no space in the parking company’s letters.
7. Compensation for his distress and time.
The landlord replied to the resident’s emails on 30 March 2022 after speaking to him on the telephone. It confirmed that the parking company had agreed to rescind the parking tickets and to suspend its operations.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 31 March 2022, seen by this Service, notes that the parking tickets had been cancelled which “should be the end of [the resident’s] immediate concerns”. Two members of staff queried whether a formal complaint should be logged or whether local resolution was sufficient. No evidence of a reply to this query has been seen.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord received confirmation from the parking company that all wrongly issued parking tickets had been cancelled.
On 19 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that his complaint had not been fully resolved. In particular, he wanted a written apology and confirmation in writing that he would receive no further parking tickets. He also wanted the landlord to respond to six specific issues set out in his email of 30 March 2022, and to address the legitimacy of the tickets in view of relevant legislation and guidance.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2022 and met with him in person on 27 April 2022. An internal email following this meeting confirmed that all the points raised by the resident in his email were “discussed at length”.
The landlord then issued its stage one response on 6 May 2022. The response stated that:
1. The parking company had agreed to rescind all tickets. Residents’ vehicle registration numbers had been provided to the company by the landlord, but not all of these had been uploaded onto the company’s system.
2. During the landlord’s meeting with the resident, the resident had agreed:
  1. He did not expect the landlord to provide the name of the individual responsible for the error.
  2. He did not expect the landlord to explain why the parking company missed a space in his vehicle registration number.
  3. He would discuss compensation with the parking company, and not the landlord.
3. The landlord would continue to monitor the parking situation and controls to alleviate issues at school times (as it had stated at a residents’ meeting on 25 April 2022, where the resident was present).
4. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
Further emails sent by the resident between 6 and 10 May 2022 made the following points:
1. The landlord’s stage one response should have been a stage two response. He believed he had requested a stage two response on 19 April 2022, having received no formal response to his stage one complaint of 26 March 2022.
2. The landlord’s response was received 42 days after he made his complaint.
3. The resident continued to seek the outcomes stated in his second email on 30 March 2022.
4. The landlord had not followed its complaints policy.
On 10 May 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he now wished to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 16 May 2022, and apologised for its delay in doing so. It later issued its stage two response on 27 May 2022, stating:
1. It apologised for the resident receiving parking tickets in error.
2. The parking company rescinded wrongly issued tickets when the error was brought to the landlord’s attention, and this was confirmed to affected residents.
3. The error was due to a problem with the portal used by parking attendants.
4. As soon as the landlord was made aware of the error, it asked the parking company to suspend the service until the error was rectified.
5. All vehicle registration numbers had now been uploaded onto the portal.
6. The resident was in contact with the parking company and accepted that the fault lay with them. He had agreed to discuss compensation and any issues concerning the details of the tickets with the parking company.
7. The landlord had asked the parking company to attend only at school times.
8. It would continue to monitor the parking service and review it with residents.
The resident subsequently informed this Service that he considered the following matters to remain unresolved:
1. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, and did not offer compensation in relation to this.
2. The landlord did not make control checks regarding the uploading of data to the parking company’s system.
3. The landlord had not sent the resident a letter confirming he would not receive any more parking tickets.
4. The landlord had not asked residents who received parking tickets if they had received confirmation of their cancellation by the parking company.
5. He felt there were issues with the landlord’s governance and that this should be reviewed.
6. He felt that the landlord should not enter into arrangements with contractors who “tell lies and ignore government guidance”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to its contracted parking company wrongly issuing parking tickets to the resident

Receiving the parking tickets evidently caused considerable distress to the resident. The Ombudsman appreciates his frustration at receiving two tickets that were not only issued in error, but also issued during the course of an initiative that was intended to benefit him. His distress was compounded by the fact that he felt there were errors and inaccuracies in the issuing of the tickets, namely:
1. There was nothing affixed to his vehicle, as the letters stated.
2. The vehicle registration number quoted in the letters did not contain a space.
3. The letters were sent to him at his home address, which demonstrated that the sender knew he was a resident of the street where he received the tickets.
The purpose of this investigation is not to establish whether the tickets were issued lawfully; the fact that they should not have been issued is not disputed. Ultimately, the tickets were cancelled and the resident did not suffer any actual financial loss. Instead, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in responding to the issue of the parking tickets, and whether it took sufficient steps to prevent tickets from being wrongly issued in the first place.
There is a primary school close to the resident’s property. The information provided indicates that the landlord contracted the parking company in response to concerns raised by residents about parents parking on the resident’s street at school drop-off and collection times. The street in question is a private scheme that allows parking for residents and their visitors only.
The landlord complied with its policies by using an external car parking company to address a local parking issue. In making arrangements for parking control on the resident’s street, the landlord attempted to mitigate against wrongly issued tickets by providing residents’ vehicle registration numbers to the parking company. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the list would be taken into account by the parking company when carrying out its function of enforcing parking. The landlord had no reason to doubt the parking company until it received reports of tickets being wrongly issued.
The landlord first became aware of the tickets when the resident contacted it by email on 26 and 30 March 2022. The landlord contacted the parking company on 30 March 2022 and arranged for the parking tickets to be rescinded, and for the parking company to suspend its operations until the cause of the problem had been addressed. It then informed the resident the same day of the action it had taken. This was a prompt and appropriate response by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Although the resident’s emails of 26 and 30 March 2022 were headed “COMPLAINT” and contained an obvious expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service and actions, the landlord does not appear to have treated the communications as a formal complaint at this point. It is acknowledged that, in housing management, the term ‘complaint’ is often used when ‘report’ or ‘service request’ is meant (for example, in repair and antisocial behaviour cases). However, in this case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident was clear that he wished to make a formal complaint and receive a formal written response. The language used by the resident, such as in his requests for an “apology” and “compensation”, is not consistent with that of a service request.
The landlord’s tenant handbook says that “if [a complaint] can’t be resolved straight away, it will be fully investigated”; this provides for an informal resolution stage before stage one, which supports the landlord’s aim of resolving issues “in a prompt and efficient manner”. Internal correspondence by the landlord on 31 March 2022, seen by this Service, questioned whether the resident’s email should be logged at stage one of the complaints process or “dealt with locally”. This was an important question for the landlord to raise, but there is no evidence that it was explored or answered.
Had the landlord been in any doubt as to whether informal resolution was appropriate, it could have asked the resident how he wanted it to deal with the matter; given the frequency of its contact with the resident at the time, it could easily have done so. Ultimately, the delay in the landlord identifying and responding to the resident’s stage one complaint is likely to have led to frustration, breakdown in trust, and loss of confidence in the landlord.
The landlord liaised with the resident via email on 31 March 2022. During the course of this correspondence, the resident expressed his satisfaction with some of the action the landlord was taking. Following this, the landlord seemed to conclude that the matter had been dealt with, noting in its internal correspondence that it had received assurance from the parking company that the tickets would be cancelled and patrols stopped until all vehicle registration numbers had been successfully uploaded to its portal. However, the landlord had not addressed all the resident’s requests at this point, such as his request for assurance that he would receive no further parking tickets.
Nearly three weeks later, on 19 April 2022, the resident told the landlord he felt his complaint had not been fully resolved. At this point the landlord commenced a stage one investigation. However, the resident was under the impression that his complaint should be investigated at stage two, as the landlord had already responded to the issues raised in his emails of 26 and 30 March. Had the landlord clearly communicated how it was going to handle the resident’s complaint, or asked the resident what his preference was, this confusion could have been avoided.
Having commenced its stage one investigation on 19 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2022. This was four working days later, whereas the landlord’s policy at the time stated that it would acknowledge complaints within one working day (this has since been updated to five working days). The landlord then complied with the timescales set out in its acknowledgement email and policy, meeting with the resident within two working days and sending its stage one response within 14 calendar days.
Meeting face-to-face with the resident exemplified good practice by the landlord. This enabled it to understand the issues and their impact on the resident, as well as explain its position regarding things it was able to do.
The landlord’s stage one response addressed each of the six points raised by the resident in his email of 30 March 2022. It also summarised a number of agreements made when the landlord met with the resident on 27 April 2022, including that the landlord could not be expected to name the individual responsible for the ticket error or explain why a space was missing from the resident’s vehicle registration number on the parking company’s letters. Importantly, the landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience he had experienced. In the Ombudsman’s view, this demonstrates that the landlord accepted some responsibility for the wrongful issue of the parking tickets, even though the error was made by the parking company.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage two on the grounds that the landlord had not followed its complaints policy at stage one, and that it had not signed a letter the resident had drafted to confirm that he would never again receive a parking ticket for his vehicle when parked on his street. The resident also felt the landlord still had not accepted responsibility for the issuing of the parking tickets, or addressed the matter of the tickets being uncompliant.
There was a delay of three working days in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. The landlord then sent its stage two response within the stipulated 14 calendar days. The response recapped points made in the stage one response, but added that the landlord had confirmed all residents’ vehicle registration numbers had been uploaded onto the parking company’s portal, and that the landlord had asked the parking company to patrol only at school times. The landlord reasonably undertook to “monitor the parking service and review it with residents” over the coming months.
The stage two response did not address the resident’s specific request for a letter confirming that he would “never” receive another parking ticket for parking on his street, using his current vehicle. It was appropriate for the landlord to refuse to provide such a letter, as there are various circumstances in which this could legitimately occur – for example, if the resident changed his vehicle or moved to another property. There may also be changes to other circumstances beyond the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have addressed this in its response, confirming that it would not provide the letter and explaining why.
Finally, the resident has highlighted to this Service that the landlord’s stage two response does not appear to have been produced by someone fully independent of its stage one response, as the stage one response was said to be produced “with the support of” the author of the stage two response. The landlord’s tenant handbook states only that stage two reviews are carried out by “a more senior member of staff”. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that complaints handlers should have no conflicts of interest and should act independently; the Ombudsman would therefore not consider it appropriate for a member of staff supporting the stage one response to produce the stage two response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to its contracted parking company wrongly issuing parking tickets to the resident.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted swiftly, fairly and sympathetically when it was made aware of parking tickets having been wrongly issued to the resident. Throughout its correspondence, it was understanding of the resident’s situation and made efforts to put things right where they had inadvertently gone wrong. Crucially, this included accepting some responsibility and apologising to the resident.
There was service failure in the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s complaint. This resulted in the resident expending time and trouble in pursuing some aspects of his complaint. While it was reasonable for the landlord to decline certain specific requests made by the resident, it should have addressed these requests in its written responses and explained its decision making. Likewise, where matters were not the landlord’s responsibility, it should have clearly communicated this and signposted the resident appropriately. Some slight delays did not cause significant adverse effect to the resident, but having a stage two responder who was independent of stage one would have allowed the landlord to demonstrate that a fair and impartial review of the resident’s complaint had taken place.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since increased its timeframe for acknowledging complaint and escalation requests to five working days. Because of this, no recommendation has been made regarding this aspect.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £100 for its service failure in complaint handling.
2. Provide evidence of payment to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its contract management arrangements with the parking company to ensure these are robust, and that resident feedback on the effectiveness of the landlord’s parking control and enforcement is actively sought and taken into account.