Clarion Housing Association Limited (202315004)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315004

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for allocated parking spaces to resolve related antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house in an estate of 17 properties with unallocated resident parking. It has no vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded for her household, but she told it they are OAPs and her spouse has mobility and health problems.
  2. The resident has been a tenant of her property since June 1998, which was originally granted by a different landlord. She and 5 neighbouring properties’ current and former residents reported each property was granted with a single allocated marked parking space in 1996 to 2001. They described receiving a car park plan indicating each property’s allocated space with their tenancy agreements, which they were unable to locate. The resident explained successive landlords stopped maintaining the spaces, so these were no longer visible or recognised by the landlord. However, she stated that she was never informed that her property no longer had an allocated parking space.
  3. In early 2022, the resident asked why the landlord had not marked her parking space, and it responded that it was not obliged to. It added this needed significant funding and was not required. The resident subsequently experienced abusive and threatening language from a neighbour in November 2022 and January and March 2023. The local council issued the neighbour 2 community protection warnings in March 2023 that such language or behaviour towards locals again would face criminal prosecution. The council, the police, the community safety partnership, and the landlord then held a case review of the resident’s ASB case in April 2023. They considered their above action, liaison, and visits was appropriate for her 13 ASB reports in 6 months, including about parking, and recommended offering mediation.
  4. In July 2023, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the above escalating ongoing parking-related ASB from neighbours causing her daily distress. She reported receiving her property with allocated parking, which she considered suitable for her estate’s families with children, OAPs, and disabled residents’ health and safety. However, the resident described the ASB she attributed to the lack of allocated parking as preventing her from parking outside her property. She added this affected her spouse’s mobility and health problems and their enjoyment, comfort, and mutual exchange application, requesting allocated parking and related information. The resident also gave the landlord her and other residents’ signed letters about their previous allocated parking.
  5. The resident subsequently reported further ASB to the landlord about a neighbour parking tightly against and damaging her car in July and August 2023. She described this as occurring for the sixth time, seemingly intentionally, providing photographs and CCTV of this, parking, and storage in front of her property. The resident explained this touched her car and blocked her from parking there. The landlord then responded to an enquiry from her MP and her stage 1 complaint in August 2023. It apologised for its late responses, but stated it found no records of allocated parking on the resident’s estate, so it could not reinstate this. The landlord therefore apologised she had not been informed of this, which it discussed and reminded its staff to clarify on sign up.
  6. The landlord considered the resident’s estate’s previous parking arrangements to have been made informally for first come first served spaces there. It also described suggesting mediation for ASB being declined for apparent de-escalation. The landlord nevertheless agreed to seek residents’ agreement for it to survey and budget re-outlining the spaces. It added the resident could seek GP or local council occupational therapist’s referrals to seek dedicated disabled parking for her spouse’s mobility and health problems. The landlord found no failures in its handling of her case, but it awarded £50 compensation for its late complaint response. However, the resident made an August 2023 final stage complaint about this not resolving ASB despite mediation being arranged.
  7. After being contacted by the Ombudsman at the resident’s request, the landlord responded to her final stage complaint in September 2023. It apologised for responding late as she replied to its stage 1 response instead of escalating via specified methods, which it would highlight in future. The landlord was nevertheless satisfied with its stage 1 response, as it investigated the resident’s numerous ASB reports with the police and the local council. It explained this led to the above community protection warnings, ASB case review, and mediation offer. However, the landlord described the problem as being everyone wanting to park in front of their properties despite there being enough parking on the estate. It stated allocated spaces were not on the estate plan or practical for all properties, as some did not directly adjoin the car park.
  8. The landlord nevertheless recognised parking was the main cause of ASB on the resident’s estate, which it sought marked spaces for before March 2024. It also advised she could still seek a GP or local council occupational therapist’s referral to seek dedicated disabled parking for her spouse. The landlord added the resident should report malicious damage to her car to the police. However, she reported neighbours’ vehicles deliberately blocking her from parking in front of her property again in October 2023, causing her distress. The resident subsequently chased the landlord in February 2024 about marking parking spaces, and it apologised its surveyor’s team’s changes missed this. It therefore quoted for and completed this in April and June 2024, respectively.
  9. The resident nevertheless complained to the Ombudsman the marked parking spaces now outside each of her estate’s properties should be allocated, with 2 spare. She considered this reasonable, as these were needed for safe loading and unloading of children, pets, and items for families, OAPs, and the disabled. The resident described there being ample parking for this to be allocated, with spaces spare for visitors and extra vehicles. She added this was necessary to avoid neighbours’ parking and storage continuing to prevent her from parking outside her property and causing future ASB. The landlord confirmed it obtained an interim injunction against the neighbour who had previously been warned in February 2024 for threatening and unacceptable behaviour. This was followed by a final injunction order in place until February 2026.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is concerning the resident reports a lack of allocated parking preventing her from parking in front of her property due to neighbours’ ASB. It is not, however, within the scope of this investigation to order allocated parking. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek remedies for through courts, other tribunals or procedures. We do not have the authority to order the landlord to alter residents’ tenancy agreements to include allocated parking in the way the courts might. Therefore, we cannot consider granting the resident’s request for this, so the scope of this investigation is limited to assessing the handling of her request.
  2. It is also of concern that the resident and several of her current and former neighbours report receiving allocated parking from 1996 to 2001. It is nevertheless not within the scope of this investigation to consider the landlord’s handling of this prior to July 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider formal complaints not brought to the landlord within a reasonable period of normally 12 months of matters arising. The resident brought her stage 1 complaint about its response to her request for allocated parking to resolve related ASB to it in July 2023. Therefore, we cannot consider the landlord’s handling of her request from 12 months before that date. This means the scope of this investigation is limited to assessing the events in the resident’s case from July 2022 onwards.

Allocated parking request

  1. The resident’s original tenancy agreement does not refer to allocated or other parking. This instead prohibits blocking roadways, vehicle access, and parking spaces that must be clear of obstructions. Nuisance, harassment, and threats to neighbours and others is also prohibited. The agreement may only be altered with the resident’s and the landlord’s written consent. It must consult her before making housing management or maintenance changes likely to have a substantial effect on her. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to take a supportive flexible approach, working with partners such as the police and local councils, for effective remedies. It is to provide tailored appropriate responses including visits, mediation, warnings, and legal action.
  2. The landlord sought to follow the resident’s tenancy agreement and its ASB policy in responding to a neighbour’s abusive and threatening language towards her. This is because it attempted to prohibit the neighbour’s harassment and threats to her, as required by the agreement, by taking action under the policy. This followed the neighbour’s verbal abuse and threats on 11, 12 and 30 November 2022, and 4, 23 and 24 January and 7 March 2023. The landlord responded to this by working with the police, the local council, and the local community safety partnership. Together, they made joint visits and arranged for the council to issue the neighbour with 2 community protection warnings on 16 March 2023.
  3. The neighbour was therefore warned against further verbally abusing, intimidating, or acting in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to locals. They were told they faced criminal prosecution if this occurred again, and the landlord then further liaised with the above agencies about the resident’s case. It did so by attending an ASB case review of this with them on 20 April 2023. This found the above action to be appropriate for the resident’s 13 ASB reports in 6 months, including about parking, and recommended offering mediation. The landlord therefore complied with its ASB policy at that time by working with partners to arrange appropriate responses, including visits, mediation, and warnings.
  4. The landlord also subsequently took additional action in response to the resident’s later reports of further ASB by her neighbour. She reported them seemingly intentionally parking tightly against and damaging her car for the sixth time on 31 July and 1 and 7 August 2023. The resident then told the landlord on 6 October 2023 that neighbours’ vehicles deliberately blocked her from parking in front of her property again. It therefore took legal action against the neighbour who had previously been warned, obtaining an interim injunction against them on 22 February 2024. This was for threatening and unacceptable behaviour, which they accepted the terms of a final injunction order in place until 21 February 2026 for. The landlord therefore followed its ASB policy again by taking appropriate legal action against the neighbour.
  5. It is concerning it took the landlord from the resident’s November 2022 ASB reports until March 2023 to arrange community protection warnings. It is also of concern it took from the neighbour’s further ASB from July 2023 to obtain an interim injunction against them in February 2024. However, it is noted that the landlord had to take time to investigate and gather evidence to support taking action for the above incidents. This included visits, liaising with the above agencies, receiving photographs and CCTV of the incidents from the resident, and obtaining legal advice for injunctions. Moreover, she explained to the landlord from the outset that the ASB was parking-related, which she asked it to resolve with allocated parking.
  6. The resident and her current and former neighbours from 5 other properties understand their properties were granted with allocated parking in 1996 to 2001. It is not disputed that they believed this at the time and subsequently. Nevertheless, there is an absence of any documentary evidence of allocated parking from that time or since, including in the original tenancy agreements. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the resident’s property was granted with allocated parking that still exists. This is particularly because the landlord found no indication of this in its records or the plan for the resident’s estate. This meant there was no obligation on it to enforce pre-existing allocated parking on the estate.
  7. However, it was understandable that the resident requested allocated parking to resolve related ASB that continued after the landlord’s above actions for this. She explained this was to allow her parking outside her property for her spouse’s mobility and health problems, and their enjoyment, comfort, and mutual exchange. The resident added this was suitable for families, OAPs, and disabled residents’ health and safety while loading and unloading children, pets, and items. It was therefore reasonable the landlord’s responses to her MP and her complaints on 16 and 17 August and 26 September 2023 agreed parking markings. This indicated spaces in the way the resident reported were previously maintained to clarify and make parking outside properties easier.
  8. The resident explained marked parking did not stop her neighbours’ parking and storage from preventing her parking outside her property and causing future ASB. The landlord nevertheless suitably considered her request for allocated parking at the time. This is because it explained it was not practical for everyone to park outside their properties, as some did not directly adjoin the car park. The landlord instead suggested a reasonable alternative to the resident of seeking a GP or local council occupational therapist’s referral. This was for dedicated disabled parking for her spouse’s mobility and health problems, which could address a need for allocated parking outside her property. However, it is noted that the resident’s neighbour might also take this for their mobility scooter.
  9. It is nevertheless of concern that the landlord told the resident it would quote for and complete her estate’s parking space markings before March 2024. She instead had to chase it on 27 February 2024 before it quoted for and completed markings on 30 April and 24 June 2024, respectively. This was an unsuitably lengthy delay of over 3 months, and the landlord explained its surveyor’s team’s changes missed this, which was inappropriate. It is also concerning that it did not update the resident on this until she chased it, especially as she was distressed by ongoing ASB. It is understandable that the landlord had to consult residents for parking markings under their tenancy agreements and budget and quote for these. However, subsequently missing and delaying without notice works that were raised to resolve complaints was inappropriate.
  10. It was therefore suitable that the landlord apologised to the resident on 13 March 2024 for her inconvenience, frustration, and its delayed response. It also previously apologised for her not being informed that there was no allocated parking on her estate, which was reasonable. The landlord additionally showed it learnt from this aspect of the resident’s complaint by discussing and reminding its staff to clarify this on sign up. Moreover, it apologised for and awarded her £50 compensation for its late complaint responses. The resident’s 17 July 2023 stage 1 complaint was responded to after 23 working days on 17 August 2023. Her 21 August 2023 final stage complaint was responded to after 25 working days on 26 September 2023, and only after the Ombudsman requested this. This was therefore contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy’s 10 and 20-working-day stage 1 and final stage complaint response timescales.
  11. This meant it was suitable the landlord explained its complaint responses were delayed by high customer contact at the time. It also showed it learnt from the resident’s unregistered final stage complaint in reply to its stage 1 response instead of via its specified methods. The landlord did so by suitably agreeing to highlight its final stage complaint escalation methods in its future stage 1 responses so these were registered. Its above compensation award additionally recognised its complaint handling delays proportionately in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This recommends compensation from £50 for such time and trouble, so the landlord’s award of this to the resident was appropriate. It has therefore been recommended to pay this to her below, if it has not done so already.
  12. However, the landlord’s apologies alone were not proportionate to recognise its unnecessarily excessive over 3-month delay in marking the resident’s estate’s parking spaces. It therefore did not put this right or show learning from the delay’s outcome, contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to do so. Our remedies guidance recommends up to £100 compensation for delays in getting matters resolved, which has been ordered to be paid to the resident below. The landlord is further recommended below to resolve her concerns about being prevented from parking in front of her property and related future ASB. This is by considering consulting residents, in accordance with tenancy agreements, on whether they agree to allocated, permit-based, or other specified parking at the estate. The landlord is also recommended to review its relevant staff’s training needs regarding the above works.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for service failure in its response to the resident’s request for allocated parking spaces to resolve related ASB.

Order and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 further compensation within 4 weeks to recognise its over 3-month delay in marking her estate’s parking spaces.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £50 compensation it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Consider consulting residents on whether they agree to allocated, permit-based, or other specified parking at the resident’s estate.
    3. Review its relevant staff’s training needs on promptly arranging and providing regular progress updates on works to its estates.