Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313298)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202313298
Clarion Housing Association Limited
25 September 2024
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:
- The communication to the resident about parking space availability and permits at the resident’s housing development.
- The associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a flat on a housing development and there are also leaseholders who live on the housing development. The leaseholders have their own allocated parking, which they purchased with their lease.
- In June 2022, the resident completed a housing application bidding form via her local authority to apply for a property owned by the landlord. The resident moved into the property in July 2022.
- On 6 February 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated the landlord had poorly communicated to her about parking permits when she was allocated her property. The resident explained she had not received any information from the landlord’s neighbourhood officer about parking permits, as agreed. She also stated that she had limited mobility and one of her children had autism, therefore she required the use of a car for her daily life.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained it had liaised with its neighbourhood housing officer, and they confirmed that there was no parking on the housing development for tenants and stated that the parking was for leaseholders and shared owners. It also explained that the property was advertised as a car-free development. Therefore, it stated that the resident accepted the property as a car-free property. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
- On 6 March 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained that the information the landlord provided in its stage 1 complaint response that the property was advertised car-free was incorrect, and she attached a copy of the advert to support this. The resident stated she had been left to deal with the financial consequences of not having a parking permit and stated that she had to pay £280 worth of parking tickets. She explained she would like a full reimbursement of the parking charges due to the poor communication from the landlord.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained it had reviewed the advertisement information it provided to the local authority to advertise the resident’s property. The landlord confirmed it did not explain that the housing development was car-free. The landlord stated it planned to advertise the properties as a car-free development until all tenant flats were occupied. The reason for this was to ensure that it had a fair way of issuing permits and residents did not get a permit because they moved in first. It stated in hindsight there were errors with this approach. The landlord also explained that the parking charge notices issued to the resident were not challenged directly with the parking enforcement contractor. In addition, it also explained that the parking notices that were issued were for a vehicle that was not registered to the resident or her address. Therefore, it stated it could not agree these costs were directly incurred by her and it could not refund the parking notice costs. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the error with the poor communication about the parking.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was to receive a reimbursement for the parking tickets she received and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s communication to the resident about parking space availability and permits at the resident’s housing development.
- This report will consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of its communication to the resident about parking space availability and permits at the resident’s housing development. In addition, it will consider the parking tickets the resident received on her parent’s car for parking on the housing development. It will not consider the parking tickets the resident received on her courtesy car, as this specific issue was not raised via the landlord’s complaint procedure. The rules which govern our service are set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords can respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue the parking tickets for the courtesy car further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
Policies, Procedures, Tenancy agreement and property advert.
- The landlord’s allocation policy states that as a registered provider of social housing, it has a duty to assist local authorities in the areas it operates in by offering a percentage of available homes to people nominated by the local authority.
- The landlord has provided a copy of the property advert for the resident’s property. The advert is silent on car parking availability and permits and does not mention any reference to the parking. In addition, the resident’s tenancy agreement does not include any information about car parking.
Assessment.
- On 17 June 2022, the resident submitted a housing application nomination form via her local authority to the landlord for one of its advertised properties. The resident has explained that she believed the property on the housing development included parking and the landlord informed her that the property had parking. The Ombudsman has reviewed a copy of the property advert for the resident’s property, and it does not include any information about whether car parking was available.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2023 to enquire about parking permits on the housing development. She explained she was experiencing a lot of issues when she was parking and stated she was told when she moved into the property that the landlord would hold a meeting with all residents about how parking permits would be issued. The landlord responded to the resident by email on 18 January 2023, and it stated due to a high demand for car parking spaces, it could not offer any residents a car parking space. The Ombudsman recognises that the response from the landlord must have been frustrating for the resident, particularly as she believed car parking was included within the property.
- Following the landlord’s response, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained the landlord had poorly communicated to her about parking permits when she was allocated her property. The resident explained she had not received any information from the landlord’s neighbourhood officer about parking permits, as agreed. She also stated that she had limited mobility and one of her children had autism, so she required use of a car for her daily life.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident in March 2023. It explained that it had liaised with its neighbourhood officer who advised that there was no parking available on the housing development and the parking spaces on the housing development were for leaseholders and shared owners. The landlord also stated that the resident’s property was advertised as a car-free development and stated the resident signed the tenancy agreement and accepted the property as car-free. The Ombudsman recognises that some of the information provided in the landlord’s response was incorrect, as the property advert or tenancy agreement did not state that the resident’s property on the housing development was car-free. The resident may have felt frustrated as a result of this misinformation.
- Due to the incorrect information provided in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord responded with its stage 2 complaint response and confirmed it had reviewed the property advert and stated it did not include any information that the housing development was car free. It acknowledged that it was not clear with all residents about the parking situation and recognised it provided the resident with incorrect information which impacted her decision to accept the property. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its error and poor communication about the parking. The landlord acted appropriately by reviewing the property advert as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation and acknowledging that it did not advertise the property as car-free. This demonstrates the landlord showed willingness to acknowledge and correct its mistakes.
- In addition, the landlord also explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it had contacted its parking enforcement contractor about the issued parking tickets. The landlord confirmed that a total of 5 parking tickets had been issued in relation to the resident between January and March 2023. It explained that the parking tickets were issued because the car was parked in a leaseholder’s bay, as well as not being parked in a marked bay. The landlord confirmed that the car which received parking tickets was not registered to the resident or her address. It explained that it could not agree to reimburse the parking ticket costs as it could not agree that the costs were directly incurred by her, due to the car not being registered under her name. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the car which she received the parking tickets on was her parent’s car, and she was using the car as she did not have her own car at the time.
- The Ombudsman concludes that the resident did incur financial costs for the tickets. The resident has confirmed that she paid for the parking tickets and the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that she provided it with a copy of the parking ticket receipts. The resident has also provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the parking tickets. Therefore, based on this, it is clear that the resident incurred the financial cost of the parking tickets.
- Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not provide the correct information about parking availability at the housing development. Therefore, had the resident received the correct information when she moved into the property, she may not have received the parking tickets. Considering this, the landlord should reimburse the resident for the 4 parking ticket costs she incurred and write off the 5th parking ticket, which the landlord confirmed had not yet been paid. If it has now been paid, the landlord should reimburse the ticket cost. The reimbursement and write off is for the parking tickets received between 3 January 2023 and 11 March 2023, which were referenced in the landlord stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman is only aware of the 5 parking tickets referenced in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. However, if the resident has received other parking tickets prior to the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint on 28 April 2023, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reimburses these.
- The landlord also explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it was implementing parking enforcement for the resident’s living at the housing development, which meant that all residents could request a parking permit. It confirmed that letters would be issued to all residents to introduce the parking permit scheme. The landlord sent a letter to the resident and other residents living at the housing development and explained that the resident and other residents could apply for a parking permit. It confirmed that the parking permit fee was £2.50 per year and a maximum of 2 vehicles could be registered. The landlord introducing and implementing a parking permit scheme was a positive step taken by the landlord and also meant that the resident could park her car on the housing development grounds, subject to there being a car park space available.
- The landlord confirmed in its file submission sent to the landlord that the resident registered two cars under the parking permit in July 2023.
- Considering all of the above, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the communication to the resident about parking space availability and permits at the resident’s housing development. As referenced above, it would be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse and write off the outstanding tickets, which were issued between 3 January 2023 and 11 March 2023. The reimbursement is in addition to the £150 compensation the resident offered in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor communication about parking availability and permits. The landlord’s offer of £150 for distress and inconvenience is compliant with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation which is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there was no permanent impact. In this case there was no permanent impact as the landlord acknowledged the error and should resolve the issue with the parking tickets, and the resident has since registered two cars under the housing development parking permit. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable compensation for distress and inconvenience, but it should have also reimbursed the resident for the parking tickets.
The associated complaint.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
- The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2023. The landlord’s response was 10 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
- It took the landlord approximately 37 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. The delay would have caused inconvenience to the resident, and she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman as she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
- The landlord apologised in both complaint responses for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. In addition, it also offered the resident £50 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response to recognise the delay in it providing its stage 1 complaint response. However, it did not offer the resident any compensation for its delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. Also, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that she has still not received the compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its poor communication about the parking. The resident contacted the landlord in December 2023 chasing the compensation payment and the landlord still failed to process the payment. The delay from the landlord was unreasonable and would have added to the inconvenience the resident had already experienced due to the landlord’s communication errors.
- Given the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response and the delay in it paying the resident’s compensation offer, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put this right.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communication to the resident about parking space availability and permits at the resident’s housing development.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to:
- Reimburse the resident parking ticket charges she paid and write off the outstanding parking ticket charge for the 5 tickets issued between 3 January 2023 and 11 March 2023.
- Pay the resident £50 compensation for its complaint handling errors. This amount is in addition to the £50 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, the landlord should pay a total of £100 compensation to the resident.
- Pay the resident £150 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication with the parking.
- The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that landlord considers reimbursing the resident for any other parking tickets she may have received and paid prior to 28 April 2023, which is when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.