Clarion Housing Association Limited (202008288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008288

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 March 2021

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 handling of:
1. the allocation of the resident’s parking space.
2. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (“ASB”) by her neighbours.
3. the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of the landlord’s staff.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord who is the freeholder of the property. Its tenancy agreement with her specifies that she is “not to park any motor vehicle on [its] property except in the designated parking spaces (if provided)”.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will not conduct a full investigation into every report of ASB as an incident may be a “one-off event” or it expects residents to resolve issues directly with the parties involved. This also provides its thresholds for an investigation into ASB; these are:
1. three separate incidents reported within seven days by one household
2. five separate incidents reported within 28 days by one household
3. two separate incidents reported within 28 days by two or more households.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure; this does not specify timeframes for responses.

Summary of events

It is evident that the resident raised several ASB issues to the landlord in 2020.
1. On 12 February 2020, the landlord wrote to her to advise it had been unsuccessful in contacting her.
2. On 27 March 2020, it wrote to her to advise it was closing an ASB case concerning fly-tipping which had now been resolved.
3. On 15 April 2020, it wrote to her to confirm it was closing an ASB case as it had been unsuccessful in making contact with her despite several requests to her to make contact with it about her reports of ASB.
4. On 15 May 2020, it wrote to her to advise that the ASB case relating to her most recent report would be closed. The landlord repeated advice given to the resident by the police, which was to not engage with any neighbours with whom she disagreed with and avoid confrontation. It confirmed the police would be in contact to advise about the specific incident.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the area on 15 July 2020 concerning the use of the parking spaces. It asserted that car parking spaces were allocated to properties in their respective deeds and requested that residents immediately reverted to using their allocated spaces only. The landlord explained that this was to clarify the situation as a result of ASB incidents arising from parking disputes. It enclosed a plan of the street detailing which space was allocated to which property and confirmed that it was now prohibited for a resident to:
1. exchange parking spaces with another resident
2. allow another resident to use a parking space allocated to their property
3. store anything other than a roadworthy vehicle or mobility scooter in regular use in their parking space.
4. make regular use of the visitor parking spaces provided.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2020 to provide an appointment for a joint visit between her, itself and the police on 29 July 2020 to investigate her reports of ASB from her neighbours. It confirmed that if she did not wish to discuss the ASB report further then it may close the case.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 July 2020 in which she raised a stage one complaint and outlined three points of complaint:
1. She contended that it had unlawfully taken away her agreement with her neighbour (‘Mr A’) to use his parking space and wanted the landlord to allocate the visitor parking space next to her existing space to her exclusively, providing her with two spaces.
2. She wanted to be “left alone” by her neighbours and for the landlord to deal with the discrimination she had experienced which she had reported to the police. The resident said her household felt “fear for our lives” as a result of threats made against her.
3. She wanted all communication between herself and the landlord to be via email or letter. The resident did not want any further contact “by personal visits or telephone calls… to intimidate us”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 July 2020 to assert that she had been the victim of discrimination. She relayed that she had acquired a mobility car in 2018 and her neighbour (‘Mr A’) gave her his parking permit to enable her to park in his parking space. The resident noted that the landlord was aware of this and recognised this as a “private arrangement between households” that it would not involve itself with.
The resident described experiencing ASB from a neighbour (‘Miss B’) which the landlord did not resolve and instead it “punished” her for complaining about the ASB by assigning Mr A’s parking spot to Miss B in its letter of 15 July 2020. She contended that it had breached its tenancy agreement with her by failing to consult with residents before implementing changes. The resident also held that it was “direct discrimination” by the landlord as she had needed to “fight” for her parking bay to be located in front of her property but it had allocated the parking space to Miss B without her needing to raise a formal complaint.
The resident advised that since the change of parking spaces she had also experienced ASB from another neighbour, (‘Miss C’) who had shouted racially inflammatory remarks to her, which had been reported to the landlord and the police. She highlighted that other residents had continued to park in each other’s parking spots, with consent, but she had had this “right, formal or informal, withdrawn”. The resident requested a response to her complaint in email or writing by 18 August 2020 as she was reducing her social contact with others due to COVID-19.
On 31 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge that she emailed it on 24 July 2020 to decline the meeting and only wanted to correspond via email or letter. As a result of this, it was not able to investigate the ASB any further and “with the agreement of the police” it was closing the ASB case.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 7 August 2020 in which it explained that it had made changes to parking permissions because of parking issues and complaints. It asserted that any informal agreement between residents on the use of their parking spaces was within its rights to withdraw. The landlord stated that the resident never had a legal entitlement to another parking space, and it rejected her assertion that it had acted in a discriminatory way as all residents were subject to the same change.
The landlord noted that the resident had made reports of experiencing hate crime from her neighbours and that these had been reported to the police. The police had confirmed to it that all claims had been “found to be unsubstantiated and closed with no further action”. The landlord relayed that it had offered a joint visit with the resident and the police to discuss her concerns as it “took any issues such as this seriously”. It noted that the police officer involved had informed her that the visit was to take place in the garden whilst wearing personal protective equipment (‘PPE’) and maintaining safe distances. The landlord encouraged her to engage with it to enable it to investigate and resolve any reports of ASB.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had requested that it only contact her by email or letter, as she had previously mentioned in her email on 24 July 2020 that its staff had been “intimidating and threatening”, in addition to being vulnerable to COVID-19. It asked her to formally request this by contacting its data protection team. The landlord highlighted that the reason for the planned joint home visit was that it was not “always practical or possible” for all parties to discuss such issues by telephone or email, which would have slowed down the resolution of the matter. It added that restrictions on contact methods would slow down resolution of emergency repairs, as an example.
The landlord concluded that it could find no evidence of discriminatory or offensive behaviour on its part and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident replied on 7 August 2020 to escalate her complaint to the final stage. In this, she raised a number of matters of dispute.
The resident wanted an extra parking space in front of her property to be allocated for her sole use. She contended that her current parking space had been allocated to her only after pursuing a formal complaint to have this located in front of her property. The resident said that none of the other residents had needed to go through the formal complaint process to get parking spaces in front of their properties, as per the landlord’s letter of 15 July 2020, so therefore this amounted to discrimination. She added that her previous parking arrangement with Mr A was “amicable” and had not caused any dispute and therefore it had acted in an “unreasonable” way by ending the arrangement.
The resident wanted an apology from the landlord and its retraction of the “allegation” that she had said its staff had been intimidating or abusive. She denied saying this but was “upset” that a staff member had “blamed” her for issues in the area which she felt were unsubstantiated.
The resident advised that she had evidence that she had not been informed until a year after moving into the property that she had been only allocated one parking space. She held that she would not have accepted the property if she had known this to be the case. The resident referred the landlord to notes from a “past formal hearing”. She contended that the landlord had “punished [her] regardless of fact we have disability protected rights & racial/religious rights” and had favoured other residents over her despite their not needing mobility cars.
The resident questioned why, if all residents had signed tenancy agreements to signal their acceptance of specific allocated parking spaces, the landlord rearranged the allocated parking spaces without “forcing” them to go through the formal complaints procedure as she had. She wanted to know what the issues were which precipitated this change and whether they related to her.
On the matter of the proposed joint meeting, the resident requested reasonable adjustments to be made for her as she had medical conditions which rendered a meeting in her garden impractical. She was concerned such a meeting may be indiscreet as this conversation could be overheard by neighbours. She contended that carrying out correspondence by only email and letter amounted to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident requested details of allegations of ASB made against her and asked the landlord to impel her neighbours to “leave [her] alone”. She disputed its assertion that the police had ceased to investigate the hate crime she had reported; she held that the police had informed her this would continue to be investigated.
The resident contended that the landlord and the police had previously entered her property to view her CCTV placement and it, and the police, had given her permission to park in Mr A’s parking space.
On 14 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her report of fly tipping on 3 August 2020 and explain that it did not investigate every incident reported as “many prove to be one off”. It requested she contact it again if the issue reoccurred.
On 9 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it was investigating her ASB reports and provided ASB incident diary sheets for her to complete.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 16 September 2020 to the resident. It asserted that there was no evidence that she had been treated differently to any other resident of the street as every resident had been given the same information and outcome regarding parking spaces.
The landlord relayed that two attempts had been made with the resident to discuss her recent ASB report and it would continue to monitor the situation and would be in contact to discuss a way to progress the matter. It maintained that it had investigated her reports of ASB in line with its policy and procedure.
The landlord advised that, upon further investigation, it had acknowledged that there had been an informal agreement between the resident and Mr A, but this was not the same as providing formal permission. It reasoned that, should Mr A have left the property, the agreement would have ended in any event. The landlord confirmed that it was not possible for allocate an additional parking space for her exclusive use as each property had its own space and the remaining two spaces were for visitor use.
In response to the resident’s assertion that she had not claimed that it had been intimidating or abusive, it referred her to her email of 24 July 2020 in which she stated that she no longer wished to receive “personal visits or telephone calls to intimidate [her]”. It confirmed that it had found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by its staff.
The landlord apologised to the resident for referring her, in its stage one complaint response on 7 August 2020, to its data protection team to make her request to be contacted in writing only. It acknowledged that she should not have been asked to submit another request and confirmed that her telephone number had been removed from its records. The landlord cautioned that this could lead to delays in the resolution of future matters such as ASB or repair reports. It concluded by confirming that it had found no evidence of failures in its handling of her concerns about ASB or parking.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the allocation of the resident’s parking space

The tenancy agreement, above at point 2, forms the legal contract between the landlord and the resident, and her acceptance of this confirms her agreement to be bound by its terms. This agreement states that she is only to park her vehicle in the parking space designated to her property and it is noted that the landlord clarified to her on 15 July 2020 which parking spaces were allocated to which property and this was communicated to all residents. It acted reasonably in informing all residents which parking spaces they were to use and there is no evidence that the resident is being treated differently from others in its approach.
The resident has contended that the landlord has involved “unlawfully” itself in an informal agreement between her and Mr A; however, it is appropriate for it to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement on its tenants. There is no provision in the tenancy agreement for the negotiation of parking spaces; therefore, it was a reasonable response from the landlord in its stage one and final responses to confirm that she was to use only her allocated parking space. It is accepted that the resident had an informal arrangement with Mr A. However, in the absence of any formal agreement with the landlord for the resident to use Mr A’s parking space, the landlord was entitled to withdrew permission for such an arrangement at any time. Overall, there is no evidence of any failure in the landlord’s handling of the allocation of parking spaces.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

There is evidence that the landlord responded on 12 February, 27 March, 15 April, 15 May, 23 July, 14 August and 9 September 2020 about the resident’s reports of ASB. It is noted that contacts on 12 February and 15 April referred to a lack of response from the resident, and the landlord’s offer on 23 July 2020 of a joint visit was declined. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining the visit. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as an option in an effort to discuss her concerns and agree a way forward.
It is evident that the landlord made reasonable attempts, on a monthly basis, to contact the resident about her reports of ASB. It is unclear whether her reports met its threshold for investigation, as per its ASB policy above at point 3, but its engagement with her to attempt to investigate further indicate that it acted reasonably and in line with its policy.
For an investigation into ASB to be effective, it requires engagement from the resident. The landlord continued to contact the resident throughout the course of her complaint about her ASB reports and has indicated that it will continue to do so. This is a reasonable approach by the landlord, as sufficient evidence must be acquired before any action can be taken in respect of ASB. It also liaised with the police to offer a joint visit on 29 July 2020, which demonstrated that it took the resident’s reports seriously, which was a reasonable response to the nature of the ASB reported.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably and in accordance with its ASB policy and there is no evidence of a failure on its part in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct

The resident did not specify in her complaint on 24 July 2020 exactly how the landlord had acted inappropriately in its telephone or face-to-face contact. The landlord could only investigate such reports if the resident provided specific details of the inappropriate behaviour which she experienced. As there was no evidence provided by the resident of the reported staff conduct, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude, in its final stage complaint response on 16 September 2020, that there was no evidence of inappropriate staff conduct.
The landlord has acknowledged that it should not have referred the resident to its data protection team when she requested to only be contacted in writing. It should instead have removed her telephone number from its records. The landlord did ultimately remove the telephone number as part of its assessment of her stage 2 complaint. The landlord has acknowledged this error and apologised. An apology represents reasonable redress in this case and the landlord is not required to do anything further.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the allocation of the resident’s parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement regarding parking and communicated clearly to all residents what the parking arrangements were, with no evidence of unfair treatment.
The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its ASB in the handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was no evidence provided by the resident of the specific staff conduct mentioned, and therefore the landlord responded reasonably by concluding there was no evidence to support her allegations about its staff.