Hyde Housing Association Limited (202012309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012309

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 November 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 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking arrangements.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

The signed tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident does not include the provision of a parking permit.
As per the landlord’s the complaints process explained document, it would offer residents an informal complaint, which it would either respond to within 5 working days, or escalate to its formal complaints procedure. For this, it would respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, although it could extend this up to a further 10 working days if it informed the resident. The landlord would respond to final stage complaints within 20 working days.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident has reported that the landlord had marketed the property with “parking to be discussed at viewing”, when she was told that she would be placed on a list for a parking space in the underground car park which had CCTV. This was particularly important for the resident, as she had been a victim of domestic violence previously, and she also worked shifts as a bus driver and felt unsafe walking in the area late at night.
The resident further reports that she received a call from the landlord in September 2020 to confirm that a space was available for her. However, she received no further contact regarding the parking space, despite calling it to try to get an update, until November 2020, after which it explained that it was unable to offer her a parking space in the car park.

Summary of events

On 21 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as she had raised a stage one complaint with it in September 2020, but she was yet to receive its complaint response. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint from September 2020.
Following a request from this Service on 21 January 2021 that the resident receive a response to her above complaint after she contacted us about this, on 4 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to invite her to collect a roadside parking permit. It informed the resident of the cost for this, and it explained that it could only issue the permit if she provided her drivers licence, vehicle logbook and MOT certificate, along with proof of tax and insurance.
On 4 February 2021, the resident responded the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. She was unhappy as she had been offered the use of the underground car park from the start of her tenancy in August 2020 up until November 2020, when it had explained that she was not entitled to a parking space as she “was not a shared ownership” resident. She felt that this amounted to “discrimination”.
2. She was willing to pay for a roadside parking permit, but she drove her grandparents’ car as one of their carers, and she was also a domestic violence victim who did not feel safe having a car registered to her address due to her previous experiences, which she was not legally obliged to do.
3. She was unhappy with the level of documentation requested by the landlord, having not been asked for all of this for her previous parking permit requests. She did not have a vehicle herself, instead having access to more than one vehicle. Therefore, she did not understand why she should be restricted to one vehicle if she was paying for the permit.
4. She felt that it was unfair that its staff who lived on the same road did not display a permit, and did not incur any parking charges as a result of this.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord responded to the resident to explain that it had no obligation to offer parking bays to her or her neighbours, and that it had done so as a gesture of goodwill. It confirmed that it could not offer a parking bay to any vehicle registered at another address, and it could not offer visitors’ spaces. Free parking was available on the surrounding roads. In respect to the other aspects that the resident had raised, the landlord directed her to its relevant team, who could assist further with those aspects of her complaint.
After this Service chased it for a response to the stage one complaint on 19 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident on that date about her complaint, as its call with her to raise a complaint had been disconnected. It aimed to respond to her complaint by 26 February 2021, but it would let her know if it was unable to do so.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had investigated the resident’s complaint. It had found that she was advised that a parking bay would be allocated to her, which was not possible. The landlord also found a delay while it had identified suitable parking for the resident nearby, however, although it had found alternative parking, it had been unable to issue a roadside parking permit for a vehicle which was not registered to one of its properties. It recognised that it should have provided accurate information to her about this at the initial sign-up for her tenancy, responded sooner to her request for a parking permit, and that its communication could have been clearer.
On 22 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she was unhappy that, despite being informed that she would be on a list for a space in the underground car park with CCTV that was reassuring to her as a domestic violence victim, she had now been told that this was only for shared-ownership residents. Furthermore, she could not obtain a roadside parking permit, which it had offered her, as she did not have a vehicle registered to herself and she did not feel safe doing so in case her ex tracked her, with there being minimal parking at her property and the nearby road recently becoming a permit road.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that it was unable to provide a stage one complaint response to her on that date. It apologised for the delay, and it hoped to be in touch with the resident with this “soon”.
On 9 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, and this is summarised as follows:
1. It agreed that she was given incorrect information regarding being given a parking space in the underground car park, and so it had upheld her complaint.
2. It offered her £100 compensation, comprising of £50 for the delay in its handling of her complaint, and £50 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by her as a result of the complaint.
3. As a result of her complaint, it would work with her to identify alternative parking for a vehicle registered to her address, and it would provide feedback to its member of staff who completed the signing-up process for her. It also confirmed that it had carried out further staff training on record-keeping and parking provisions.
On 11 March 2021, the resident requested the escalation of her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure, which is summarised as follows:
1. She was unhappy that it had not explained why she was not entitled to park in the underground car park, or why parking arrangements were not put in place for residents on her side of the road.
2. She was “offended” that it had offered her monetary compensation instead of resolving the actual issue, which was for her to be allowed to park in the underground car park. She felt that the compensation it had offered was unacceptable, as this had been ongoing for six months, which she felt was a long time “hoping to find parking”, “endless calls, emails and empty promises.”
3. In respect to her needing the vehicle to be registered to her address in order to obtain a parking permit, she explained that its staff who lived on the same road were parking their company cars “anywhere”. She felt that this was “preferential treatment” as these vehicles would not be registered to those residents, as well as reiterating that she had safety concerns after fleeing domestic violence and being a female bus driver who left and returned home early in the morning and late at night.
4. She had monitored the car park usage and noted that there were free spaces available in the car park.
5. She was also unhappy that a nearby road which was previously free parking, was now allocated to permit holders, and residents had not been informed of these changes.
On 31 March 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord to request that it consider the resident’s above final stage complaint to it, and that it respond to this within 20 working days.
On 1 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to explain that she had received no acknowledgement from the landlord to her above final stage complaint letter to it of 11 March 2021. She also noted that a neighbouring resident who was also its employee was allowed to park in the underground car park, and she did not understand why they were receiving “preferential treatment” over her.
On 30 April 2021, the resident sought to refer her complaint to this Service, as she had not received a response to her request for it to escalate her complaint. In response, this Service again wrote to the landlord to request that it update her within the next 20 working days.
On 26 May 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It had identified failings in its complaint handling, keeping her informed and the delays in providing a resolution. As a result, it offered her £150 compensation for these failings, in addition to the £100 compensation it had offered in its stage one complaint response, resulting in a total compensation offer of £250.
2. It had honoured its commitment to seek alternative parking arrangements for her, however the vehicle did need to be registered to her address for her to receive a roadside parking permit for this.
3. It confirmed that it had investigated her reports of “preferential treatment” by it towards its staff in relation to parking, but that it was satisfied that they had adhered to all parking enforcement and staff conduct protocols for this.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service to consider. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of parking arrangements for her building, which she believed not to be at full capacity. The resident also felt that “preferential treatment” was being offered to other residents who it employed, and to residents of a neighbouring road who she believed to have access to the underground car park. It also had not informed the resident of the parking arrangements it had made following her complaint, or addressed her safety concerns as a domestic violence victim.

Assessment and findings

The resident, as part of her complaint to this Service and to the landlord, reported its actions in relation to its parking arrangements as being “discriminatory” and “preferential treatment”. However, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
This Service cannot determine whether discrimination or preferential treatment has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s reports about its parking arrangements and to the corresponding complaint handling on its part, in line with its policies, procedures and other obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking arrangements

Following the resident’s reported concerns to the landlord over her parking arrangements for the property from at least 21 January 2021, it was obliged to carry out an investigation for this and to communicate the outcome to her. It did so, and informed her on 5 February 2021, that it was under no obligation to offer parking bays to her or her neighbours. This was fair because, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, there was no provision for parking within the resident’s above tenancy agreement. Although it is of concern that the landlord found, on 19 February 2021, that it had previously incorrectly advised her at the initial sign-up for her tenancy that a parking bay would be allocated to her.
It was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to have reportedly attempted to offer a solution to the resident’s concerns over her parking arrangements, by offering her a space in the underground car park as a gesture of goodwill from August to November 2020. The resident reported, however, that there was a delay following its verbal advice to her in September 2020 that it would give her a space in the car park until it told her that it was unable to do so in November 2020. The landlord also provided no evidence to this Service of its communications about this, or that it had kept the resident informed of the progress of the above goodwill gesture offer, and therefore a failing was identified for its record-keeping in this regard.
The landlord was ultimately unable to honour its offer of a parking space in the underground car park to the resident, and therefore it looked to identify suitable alternative parking for her from November 2020 to February 2021. It additionally recognised its delay in doing so, in its stage one and final stage complaint responses to her of 9 March and 26 May 2021, respectively, which added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to her, and so a failing was identified on its part in these complaint responses for this delay.
The landlord did identify suitable alternative roadside parking for the resident, for which it offered her a permit on 4 February 2021 if she could provide it with the necessary documentation for this, however it confirmed to her from 5 February 2021 that it required the vehicle to be registered to its resident’s address, in line with its policy. This was nevertheless not suitable for the resident, who relied upon the use of other vehicles which were not registered to her or to an address of the landlord. She explained to it from 4 February 2021 that this was because she was a carer for her grandparents, and for safety reasons as she was a victim of domestic violence. This meant that she was unable to obtain the roadside parking permit that it had offered her.
Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to insist that roadside parking permits were only issued to its residents, to ensure that they received the benefit of the available parking in the area of its properties. It was additionally understandable that it considered the vehicle’s registered address as a means to validate this, since this would mean that it could confirm that the vehicle was registered to one of its properties. Therefore, no failing was identified on the landlord’s part for its request of this information from the resident prior to issuing her with a parking permit.
Although it is concerning that the resident was therefore unable to access a roadside parking permit from the landlord due to her need to use other vehicles that were not registered to her property, as a result of being a carer for her grandparents and her safety concerns as a domestic violence victim. It is also of concern that it did not reconsider its requirement for her to have a vehicle registered at her own address for a parking permit in light of these circumstances, or succeed in providing her with a viable alternative to this. This included the landlord’s suggestion to the resident of 5 February 2021 that she could use free parking in surrounding roads, given that she explained to it on 22 February 2021 that there was minimal parking and a permit road nearby.
The resident additionally reported that the landlord’s staff, who also resided on the same road as her, had breached its parking regulations by parking without displaying a permit or incurring charges for this. It therefore took the opportunity of its full complaints procedure to confirm that it had investigated her reports about this, however it confirmed that it was satisfied following its investigation that there had been no breach of its parking enforcement and staff conduct protocols in relation to this. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, in investigating the matter and communicating this to the resident in its final stage complaint response of 26 May 2021, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The resident also requested an explanation from the landlord as to why parking arrangements had not been made for her and her neighbours. In this instance, it was reasonable for it to rely upon the commitment for a parking space for those residents whose respective tenancy or leasehold agreements include the provision of a parking space, unlike hers. It was additionally reasonable that the landlord was unable to provide more specific information to the resident about other residents’ occupancy agreements in this regard, due to the requirements for it to protect their personal data and confidentiality. Therefore, no failing was identified on its part for it not providing her with a further explanation of its lack of parking arrangements for her or her neighbours.
However, in light of the resident’s above concerns about registering a vehicle at her address, as a carer for her grandparents and for her safety as a victim of domestic violence, it would have been preferable if the landlord had reconsidered its requirement for a vehicle to be registered at her address for her to receive a roadside parking permit. In the absence of this, it would also have been preferable if it had found other viable alternative parking for her, particularly given that it had initially incorrectly advised her that an underground parking bay would be allocated to her.
The landlord has therefore been recommended below to reconsider its requirement for a vehicle to be registered at her address for her to receive a roadside parking permit, in light of her personal circumstances, or to seek further viable alternative parking for her, if it is unable to do so, and inform her of the outcome. It has additionally been recommended below to review its record keeping processes, given its absence of records such as its above initial incorrect parking advice to her in her case, and to re-offer her the £250 that it awarded her in its final stage complaint response of 26 May 2021, if she has not received this already.
The latter was proportionate to recognise the landlord’s above failings in relation to its incorrect parking advice to the resident at her initial tenancy sign-up and subsequently, its lack of records of this, and its delay in identifying suitable alternative parking for her from November 2020 to February 2021. This is because this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £250 for landlords’ failures including giving incorrect information about residents’ rights, delays in acting in accordance with policy over a considerable period of time, and residents repeatedly having to chase responses.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 March 2021, which was in response to her complaint and this Service’s request of 21 January 2021, and so was at least 23 working days later than the ten-working-day timescale in its above the complaints process explained document. However, the resident suggested that she had first complained to the landlord in September 2020. This Service was not provided with a copy of this communication, as outlined above. Notwithstanding this, the resident’s communication with the landlord on 21 January 2021 clearly expressed her dissatisfaction and referred to her previous complaint to it, and it failed to provide a timely response to this in line with its obligations detailed above.
The resident then requested the escalation of her complaint by the landlord to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 11 March 2021, and following a lack of response from it, this Service sent two further letters to it on 31 March and 30 April 2021, requesting that it consider her final stage complaint. The landlord did subsequently issue its final stage complaint response to her on 26 May 2021. It was unfair, however, for the resident to have waited so long for its response, which added further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to her, and was additionally considerably outside of its above the complaints process explained document’s 20-working–day response target, being 31 working days later than this.
The landlord nevertheless took the opportunity of its full complaints procedure to offer the resident £250 compensation in its above final stage complaint response, for its failings in communication, complaint handling and for the delays in providing a resolution to her. This was also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards compensation from £250 in the following circumstances. Where there have been significant failures to follow the complaint procedure or to escalate the matter by the landlord, failures over a considerable period of time by it to act in accordance with policy, or where the resident has repeatedly had to chase responses from it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking arrangements.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.
This decision is dependent on the landlord following the below recommendations.

Reasons

The landlord had incorrectly informed the resident that she would be given a parking space in the underground car park by it, when in fact it was unable to do so.
There were also failings by the landlord for its lack of records of misinforming the resident, and for its complaint handling, keeping her informed about and delaying in providing a resolution to her parking arrangements, which it recognised and apologised to her for.
The landlord also offered the resident compensation, which was proportionate to recognise any detriment experienced by her as a result of its failings in handling her parking arrangements and complaint, and that was additionally in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Reconsider its requirement for a vehicle to be registered at the resident’s address for her to receive a roadside parking permit, in light of her personal circumstances, or to seek further viable alternative parking for her, if it is unable to do so, and inform her of the outcome.
2. Re-offer the resident the £250 compensation that it previously to awarded her, if she has not received this already.
3. Review its record keeping processes, including for the retention of verbal and other contact between it and its residents at the start of their tenancies and in relation to parking arrangements, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for these, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, what the agreed next steps, timescales and expectations were, and what actions subsequently took place.
4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to parking, complaints and record keeping, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.