Curo Places Limited (202317590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317590

Curo Places Limited

26 March 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the car parking facilities on his estate.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a studio bungalow.
3. The resident holds a blue badge for parking.
4. The landlord met with the landlord at the estate on 14 July 2023 to discuss his concerns about car parking following its build of a new development nearby. The resident followed this up on the same day via e-mail, raising a complaint with the landlord. He was unhappy that properties on the new development had been allocated 2 parking spaces each in a new car parking area. He felt this discriminated towards pre-existing residents on the estate who did not have allocated parking spaces.
5. The landlord and resident exchanged further e-mails about this throughout July, with the landlord undertaking a further site visit on 4 August 2023.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2023. It told the resident that he could no longer use the land he usually parked on as this would block 2 of the new spaces it had allocated to residents. It said that it had unallocated 4 of the spaces for the new build development which all residents in the vicinity would be able to use on a first-come-first–served basis.
7. Following this, the landlord and the resident exchanged e-mails discussing allocating the resident his own disabled parking space. The landlord told the resident that it unfortunately could not make one of the 4 unallocated spaces into a disabled parking bay without compromising the size of the other spaces due to the buffer zone needed around a disabled parking space.
8. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 August 2023. He said that he felt the landlord’s approach was discriminatory. He said, in fairness to all residents, that all of the parking spaces should be unallocated. The resident told the landlord on 21 August 2023 that this was not just his complaint but that he was one of many residents on the estate that were unhappy with the parking arrangements.
9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 18 October 2023. It awarded the resident £25 compensation for its delays in providing him its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it remained unable to allocate a general use parking space to him for sole usage, but provided information to him on how could apply for a disabled parking bay through the local authority. It said it had also looked into the planning application for the development which detailed that it would allocate the new builds 2 spaces each. It said no residents raised objections about this issue whilst it was seeking planning permission. The landlord added that it would be unable to discuss its communications with any of his neighbours about parking spaces due to data protection.
10. The resident called the Ombudsman on 18 October 2023 asking us to consider his complaint. He said he was complaining on behalf of all other residents and that the landlord’s decision to make 4 of the spaces unallocated was not good enough. He felt the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination against the pre-existing residents who did not have any allocated parking.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

11. The resident states that he is bringing this complaint on behalf of a number of households on the estate, and that this is a group complaint. We have discretion to accept a complaint from an individual as a ‘lead complainant’ where all affected households give consent, and where all residents are affected in the same way.
12. In this instance, there is no evidence that the resident received authority or consent from all of those affected by the landlord’s actions to act as a lead complainant. The resident did not have such consent through the complaints process or during his contact with the Ombudsman. We are therefore unable to treat this complaint as a group complaint and will instead be looking at how the landlord’s actions affected the resident solely.
13. The resident also said that he feels the landlord’s actions amount to discrimination against him and his neighbours. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord has been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident. This is a legal matter and therefore for the courts to decide. Instead, the Ombudsman has looked at whether the landlord responded appropriately and fairly to his concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the car parking facilities on his estate

14. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include a designated parking space. This means that the landlord is under no legal obligation to provide the resident with his own designated parking spot. The landlord has also provided the Ombudsman with the resident’s signed agreement for a garage. This garage is located on the estate.
15. The resident has repeatedly said that he is unhappy that properties in the new development have been allocated 2 spaces per property in the new car parking area. The landlord, as owner of this land, is able to make agreements it deems appropriate in relation to this land and the new tenancies for new properties that were built.
16. Nevertheless, as part of its investigation into the resident’s concerns, the landlord undertook 2 separate site visits to inspect the car parking facilities. These took place on 14 July 2023 and 4 August 2023. On both occasions, these took place with the resident in attendance. The landlord took away the resident’s concerns to discuss internally to try and find a solution. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take in order to investigate and offer a resolution. 
17. The landlord also investigated historic conversations as the resident indicated that he was previously given different expectations about the parking arrangements. It contacted the developer of the new builds to discuss if they had been in contact with the resident. The developer confirmed that whilst they had spoken with the resident whilst the development was ongoing, they were confident that they had distanced themselves from any conversation relating to parking after completion.
18. The developer also checked the site minute meetings and found nothing specific brought up by the resident or relating to concerns about parking. It was good practice from the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns in this manner by speaking with all of the parties involved in the development.
19. The landlord also checked the planning application for the new builds and again found no objections about parking raised by the resident or any of his neighbours. The planning application listed 2 parking spaces allocated to each of the new build properties. The landlord investigated this to ensure that none of its representatives or contractors had provided the resident with any false information about the car parking facilities. It was reasonable for the landlord to fully investigate if the resident had raised objections prior to any legal agreements it may have signed with new residents.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it had unallocated 4 of the parking spaces on the new build development. This was an attempt by it to alleviate the resident’s concerns about the amount of car parking space the pre-existing residents had. The landlord said that doing so would enable the resident to reverse his van back into these spaces.
21. The landlord did this as the resident was unable to park his van on the land he formally had due to the new development. Given the landlord’s lack of legal obligation to provide a car parking space, this was fair and demonstrated the landlord attempted to go beyond its obligations. This was a resolution–focused approach from the landlord.
22. The resident has told the Ombudsman that his complaint is not about a lack of disabled parking on the estate or his request for a disabled parking bay. Nevertheless, the landlord provided the resident with the relevant advice on contacting his local authority if he did wish to seek a disabled parking bay in the future. This was a reasonable course of action from the landlord.
23. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the car park facilities on his estate. It fairly investigated his concerns and provided the resident with a clear explanation for its actions. It also attempted to offer the resident solutions by changing the allocations of some of the available parking space. Its overall handling of his concerns was fair and resolution–focused.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the car parking facilities on his estate.