From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Citizen Housing Group Limited (202344210)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344210

Citizen Housing

28 August 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of parking issues.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident’s representative brought the complaint to this Service. The resident’s representative also contacted the landlord about the complaint. For ease of reference, we will refer to the resident and their representative as “the resident”.
  2. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated November 1996. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident has physical disabilities. The landlord has such vulnerabilities on record. The landlord has informed this Service that the parking issues are on its land. It has implemented a car management scheme and appointed a parking management company to handle this. Another housing association has residents in neighbouring properties.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident about a report of nuisance parking on 21 March 2023. The landlord spoke with the resident about parking issues on 31 May and 30 August 2023. It said it needed to consult its surveyor. The resident said she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues. She requested that it installed metal fencing around the perimeter or planted a mature hedge to stop vehicles parking by her property.
  4. The resident raised a complaint about parking issues on 2 October 2023. She said:
    1. the public were parking on her front lawn.
    2. her housing officer had said they would respond within 3 working days, but she had received no further contact.
    3. she had been awaiting an outcome from the landlord’s surveyor since May 2023.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 13 October 2023. The landlord said:
    1. it was sorry the issues with parking from neighbours and the public had been ongoing for a long period of time.
    2. it appreciated this could be upsetting and distressing, but it could not help with this type of dispute as it could only take limited action regarding some of the neighbour’s parking.
    3. it would provide details of its parking management contractor by week ending 20 October 2023.
    4. it had enquired about planting a mature hedge at the front of the resident’s property. As soon as it received a response, it would update the resident.
    5. it was sorry that its service fell below expected levels. Its compensation policy allowed it to offer £60. This was £30 each for 2 service failures in March and August 2023 as it did not update the resident about nuisance parking.
    6. it would improve its communication to the resident, so she did not have to chase them about unanswered queries.
  6. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 24 October 2023. It left a voicemail and told the resident to direct any query about parking notices to its parking management contractor. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 25 October 2023. It advised her that there was no breach of tenancy, but it classed this as inconsiderate parking, and it would speak with other residents.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2023. She said she was unhappy as her neighbourhood officer had not kept her updated. The resident queried how long it would take to get approval for the hedge. She also said the parking management contractor had no record of her property and did not have a 24-hour contact number. She said the situation was worsening and vehicles were blocking access for emergency vehicles. She said a van had parked outside her property until late in the night. It blocked the pavement, and she was worried somebody would try to enter the property as she was alone.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 December 2023. It said it would chase its estates manager that day for a decision on the hedge. It also said a parking management arrangement was in place, there were parking notices and residents parking in the 4 spaces to the front of the properties should display permits. It said if a permit was not on display a penalty notice would be issued. The same day the landlord attempted to call the other housing association to discuss the issues. It left a voicemail message.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. It apologised for the distress caused. It said the resident’s neighbourhood officer and team leader would arrange a joint visit to the resident’s home to find a resolution. Additionally, the landlord said that the other housing association had contacted it about using its parking management contractor. However, this required further investigation as it currently had a contract with another parking management contractor.
  10. The landlord completed a home visit with the other housing association on 19 January 2024 and discussed the parking issues. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 March 2024. She said neighbours were parking in her disabled bay and the public visiting a neighbouring restaurant were parking in bays reserved for residents. The resident wanted the landlord to stop neighbours parking in the disabled bay so she could access her home. She also wanted it to plant a hedge to stop people parking near her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. As part of her complaint, the resident said that the issues had impacted her mental health. We are unable to determine the cause of any health conditions or the liability for this. These matters are better suited to consideration as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the parking issues have been ongoing since March 2018. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back to 2018. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. As such this investigation will focus on issues from October 2022 which is 12 months before the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. Any reference to issues from 2018 will be to provide context only.
  3. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said she has since raised a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of parking issues. This included additional issues which did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there have been issues with parking or, if there have, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received and whether if had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account the circumstances of the case.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that residents had to get written permission from the landlord to park any vehicles other than up to 2 private cars or light vans used solely for private purposes in the parking space (if any).
  3. The landlord’s estate management policy states that it would:
    1. have appropriate contracts in place which ensure clear standards of service exist and are communicated to residents.
    2. take prompt action when its partners and contractors were not delivering services to the agreed standard.
  4. The landlord’s records from 21 March 2023 show that it emailed the resident about her reports of nuisance parking. The landlord has not provided a copy of this email. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord acted reasonably to deal with the resident’s reports of parking issues. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Had the landlord considered this, it may have prevented this failing.
  5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 31 May 2023. She said she wanted the issues resolved and expected the landlord to install metal fencing around the perimeter. The landlord said it needed to consult its surveyor, but they were on leave until 5 June 2023. The landlord did not update the resident following this. This was unreasonable.
  6. The landlord called the resident on 30 August 2023 about parking on the pavement and site boundary. She requested that the landlord planted a mature hedge. The landlord contacted the resident about parking issues in March 2023. Since then, the landlord had not contacted its parking management contractor to confirm it was delivering the service agreed or communicated the standards of service to the resident. When measured against its estate management policy this was inappropriate. Additionally, the landlord did not keep the resident updated about the hedge. This was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord’s records from 13 October 2023 show its parking management contractor had no authority to deal with vehicles parked on certain parts of the site. Additionally, they show that it had contacted the Highways Agency who had advised that they classed this as inconsiderate parking and not a sanctionable offence. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. It did not inform the resident of this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident.
  8. Additionally, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it would update the resident with its parking management contractor’s contact details and responses about planting a mature hedge. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to get this information before sending this response. In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to a discussion with the resident on 13 October 2023. It has not provided a record of this. Had it considered the information in the KIM spotlight report, it may have prevented this failing.
  9. The landlord called the resident on 24 October 2023. It left a voicemail directing her to its parking management contractor for any queries about parking notices. Its estate management policy states that it would communicate service standards to residents. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to get this information and relay it to the resident.
  10. The landlord completed a home visit to the resident on 25 October 2023. It told the resident that her neighbours had not breached their tenancies but it classed this as inconsiderate parking so it would speak with them. The tenancy agreement is silent on which parking space is assigned to which property. However, it does state that residents had to get written permission to park more than 2 vehicles if a parking space was provided.
  11. The resident has informed this Service that some of her neighbours have more than 2 vehicles. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the number of vehicles and whether this was in line with any relevant agreements, policies or procedures. There is also no evidence that the landlord liaised with the other housing association who managed the parking area about this. This was unreasonable given the resident’s concerns.
  12. The resident raised concerns about the parking management contractor having no record of her property on 17 November 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 December 2023. It said it would chase the estates manager that day for a decision on the hedge. Additionally, it explained to the resident about the parking management arrangement. The delay on getting an answer on whether it would plant a hedge was unreasonable. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted its parking management contractor about the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for it to do this.
  13. On 1 December 2023 the landlord attempted to call the other housing association to discuss the parking issues. The resident had suggested this in her email of 17 November 2023. Even so this showed the landlord was considering other options to resolve the parking issues which was reasonable.
  14. In its stage 2 response of 19 December 2023 the landlord updated the resident on its communications with the other housing association around parking management contractors. This was reasonable. The landlord said that it would arrange a home visit to the resident to discuss the parking issues. It completed this on 19 January 2023 with the other housing association also in attendance. This was reasonable.

Summary

  1. The landlord completed a home visit to the resident on 25 October 2023. It also said it would speak to her neighbours about inconsiderate parking. Additionally, the landlord has liaised with another housing association to try and resolve the parking issues and completed a further home visit to discuss these issues as stated in its stage 2 response.
  2. However, the Ombudsman has found maladministration because the landlord:
    1. did not provide a copy of its email sent to the resident on 21 March 2023.
    2. did not update the resident following its call to her on 31 May 2023 when it said it needed to consult its surveyor or its actions regarding planting a hedge.
    3. did not contact its parking management contractor to ascertain that it was delivering the agreed service or communicate the agreed service standards to the resident.
    4. did not inform the resident that its parking management contractor did not have authority to deal with parking on certain parts of the site and the Highways Agency considered this inconsiderate parking and not a sanctionable offence.
    5. did not provide its parking management contractors contact details or a response to the resident’s request for it to plant a hedge in its stage 1 response.
    6. did not provide a record of the discussion it had with the resident on 13 October 2023 as referred to in its stage 1 response.
    7. did not provide information to the resident regarding parking notices on 24 October 2023 instead directing her to its parking management contractor.
    8. did not evidence that it had considered the resident’s concerns about additional vehicles in the area or liaise with the other housing association involved about this.
    9. delayed in providing an answer to the resident’s request to plant a hedge.
    10. did not contact its parking management contractor following the resident raising concerns that it did not have a record of her property.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged its failures in not updating the resident in March and August 2023. It offered £30 compensation for each of these failings for a total of £60. The resident demonstrated the distress and upset the parking issues caused in her correspondence with the landlord. The Ombudsman recognises that the some of the parking issues are beyond the landlord’s control as its parking management contractor does not have authority to act.
  4. However, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication with the resident about her parking concerns. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance a fair level of compensation would be £240 in addition to the £60 already offered by the landlord. For a total of £300. This appropriately recognises the distress and upset caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the residents reports of parking issues.
  5. The landlord should also write to the resident and outline its parking management contractor’s obligations. Including where on the site it had authority to deal with inconsiderate parking and the frequency and times of patrols it should complete. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
  6. Additionally, the landlord should write to the resident to set out any steps it would take to manage the parking issues going forward. This should include any actions it would take to monitor its parking management contractor, to ensure it was fulfilling its contractual obligations. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time was compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It stated that:
    1. it would log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 days of receipt and provide a response within 10 days of it logging the complaint.
    2. it would respond within 20 working days of it escalating the complaint at stage 2.
  2. The resident asked to make a complaint on 2 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 October 2023. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days. It provided its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. This was 14 days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint and was an oversight when measured against its complaints policy. The landlord provided this response within 10 working days which was in line with the Code and its acknowledgement. It has since updated its complaints policy to reflect that it would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2023. She continued to show her dissatisfaction in the landlord’s handling of the parking issues. The landlord’s records show that it escalated her complaint the same day. However, it is unclear when it informed the resident of this from the evidence provided. This was a shortcoming. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. This was 22 working days after it had escalated the resident’s complaint and was slightly over the timescales stated in its complaints policy.
  4. In summary, there was a slight delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 response when assessed against its complaint policy at the time. However, it provided this response within 10 working days. It is also unclear when the landlord informed the resident it had escalated her complaint. Additionally, it went slightly over its stated timescale to provide its stage 2 response. However, the slight delay in responding to the resident’s complaint did not impact the overall outcome. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days the landlord should:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident the £60 it offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.
    3. pay the resident £240, which it must not offset against any arrears, to recognise the likely upset and distress caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues.
    4. write to the resident and provide information its parking management contractor. Including where on the site it had authority to deal with parking issues and the frequency and times of patrols it should complete. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
    5. write to the resident to set out any steps it would take to manage the parking issues going forward. This should include any actions it would take to monitor its parking management contractor, to ensure it was fulfilling its contractual obligations. It should provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the date of this report.