LiveWest Homes Limited (202004014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004014

LiveWest Homes Limited

01 June 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 refers to:
1. The Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s concerns about the management of the car park at her property.
2. The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Historical Issues

Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”;

It is noted that the Resident has stated that the parking issues had been ongoing since 2018 although the evidence suggests this was not pursued as a formal complaint with the Landlord until March 2020. This Service is unable to consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the Landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2020 onward as this was when the Resident raised a formal complaint on the matter.

Further Issues

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The Resident has recently raised further concerns regarding repairs needed in her property and how the Landlord allocates parking permits. There is no evidence that this matter formed part of the original complaint which the Landlord issues its final response to on 10 June 2020. As such, this report will not consider the Resident’s complaints regarding these matters as they have not exhausted the Landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It will, however, consider the issues in relation to the Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s parking concerns and its communication with the Resident. If the Resident completes the Landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once she has received its final response, she could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Background

The Resident is a joint tenant of a property maintained by the Landlord.
Residents-only parking spaces are available within the private car park on site. The car park is managed by a parking management service on behalf of the landlord.

Summary of events

The Resident raised a complaint with the Landlord on 22 March 2020 in relation to the parking situation at her flat. She explained that the issues she was having had been ongoing since the parking management service were contracted. She requested that the Landlord liaise with its parking management service to ensure that regular patrols took place and that tickets were issued consistently. She also requested the Landlord to engage with the nearby pub to ensure the owner and tenants of the pub did not park in the private carpark for any other reason than to drop off goods. She stated that she had previously been in touch with the Landlord about these issues, although said that she had not recently received a response. She requested the Landlord to respond to her communications promptly, or at least acknowledge her messages and provide a timescale for response.
The Landlord responded on 23 March 2020 and confirmed that since restaurants and pubs would need to close due to the national lockdown response to the Covid-19 pandemic, it expected her concerns about the pub owners parking in the carpark would be resolved. It apologised if there was a delay in providing a response to her initial concerns and explained that due to the current restrictions it was not able to work as it usually would. It stated that it hoped it had now resolved the enquiry.
The Resident responded to the Landlord on the same day and stated that she did not feel the Landlord had understood the context of her complaint. She requested that the Landlord consider the matter a complaint, not an enquiry. She clarified that her complaint was in relation to the lack of action taken by the Landlord in regard to the parking issues. She stated that the Covid-19 pandemic was irrelevant as the issues had been ongoing prior to the Government restrictions and did not account for its previous lack of response. She requested that her complaint be escalated.
The Resident sent a further email to the Landlord on 8 April 2020 to confirm the reasons for her complaint. She also added that part of her complaint was about the lack of action taken by a member of the Landlord’s staff and she stated that she was surprised that the complaint was referred to the same member of staff to manage. She requested that the complaint be dealt with by a senior manager.
The Landlord provided an update to the Resident in relation to her complaint on 21 April 2020. It apologised for its delayed response and advised that its business was not as usual due to the Covid-19 restrictions. It confirmed that it would not pursue issues with parking through its own complaints procedure, although it had opened a case to investigate the time and potential lack of action regarding the Resident’s concerns about parking. It stated that it would provide a response as soon as possible.
The Resident responded the same day and stated that she could not understand why the issues surrounding parking could not be raised as a complaint. She said that she had spent considerable time trying to get the matter resolved and did not originally wish to make a complaint. She requested that the Landlord provide details of the area covered by the parking scheme as detailed in her Tenancy Agreement.
The Landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the Resident on 27 April 2020 and stated the following:
1. It advised that it did not consider complaints relating to the parking management company. It had investigated the matter, but this did not form part of her complaint. It stated that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that it had dealt with the Resident’s enquiries in relation to the parking management service on several occasions. Most recently in November 2019 where the parking management service confirmed that they had increased patrols of the site and the Resident had been notified. The Landlord confirmed that it was unable to police this on a continual basis and encouraged the Resident to contact the parking management service directly if she had further concerns.
2. The Landlord had investigated the Resident’s claims in relation to its communication and was satisfied that it had responded to her queries in a timely manner since the Resident’s first communication on 8 March 2020. It noted that it had been managing the extra challenge of Covid-19 which meant that it needed to prioritise work for its most vulnerable customers.
3. It had spoken to a number of its staff members and found that its staff had conducted themselves appropriately, therefore her complaint would not be upheld at this stage.
4. It noted that the Resident was in contact with several staff members which could lead to miscommunication or delays in responding. It advised that the Resident should contact her Housing Officer as a single point of contact for any estate or tenancy related concerns.
5. It stated that this response was its final position on the matter.

The Resident responded on 29 April 2020 and expressed further concern about the parking situation at her property:
1. She stated that her complaint was in regard to the monitoring and enforcement of the parking management service and the owner and tenants of the pub parking in the carpark. She advised that others were parking within the carpark without a permit and vehicles were parked outside of the allocated parking bays causing obstructions. She stated that, on occasion, she had parked off-site as other vehicles had been parked in the carpark. She stated that she did not understand why issues with parking could not be considered a complaint by the Landlord as the parking management service was contracted by the Landlord, and the Resident did not feel she was receiving this service.
2. She did not agree that the matter had been dealt with sufficiently as it had been ongoing since 2018. She states that she had not been told that the parking management company would be increasing their patrols and had not witnessed any patrols on site. She had also seen the parking management service attend and leave without carrying out a patrol. She said that as the service was not being supplied, the Landlord had a responsibility to resolve the matter.
3. She stated that she had approached the parking management service directly on previous occasions and had not received a response apart from on one occasion.
4. She did not believe that the Landlord had responded within a reasonable timescale. She stated that the Landlord had not taken sufficient action to resolve the issues sooner and raising the complaint had been a last resort.
5. She stated that the parking spaces were no longer identifiable as the paint had worn away; she felt that this contributed to the inconsiderate parking.
On 29 April 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident and acknowledged her previous email. It also sent the consultation letter in respect of the proposed parking scheme from 2016 which she had previously requested.
Further communication took place between 30 April 2020 and 6 May 2020 in which the Landlord and Resident discussed the details of the parking scheme, including the pub owner’s parking and access to the car park. The Resident confirmed that the parking management service had advised her to contact the Landlord about further parking concerns due to the national lockdown and restrictions in place.
The Resident emailed the Landlord on 14 May 2020 and requested that the Landlord review her complaint in order to resolve the matter internally.
The landlord acknowledged the Resident’s request on 20 May 2020 and stated that it would review her complaint at stage two of its internal complaints process and that she would be contacted in due course.
On 28 May 2020 the Landlord phoned the Resident to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident was informed she would receive a response by the end of the following week.
On 1 June 2020 the Landlord emailed the nearby pub and explained that it had received reports that its owner and tenants were parking on the private carpark. It stated that it was concerned that when the pub re-opened following the lockdown the problem would reoccur. It requested that the pub speak to its tenants about the issue so that it could prevent a reoccurrence and avoid the need for a court injunction.
On 5 June 2020 the Landlord emailed the Resident to provide an update on the complaint. This included apologising for the delay in sending a response, noting the impact of Covid 19 and confirming a deadline for response of 10 June 2020. The resident acknowledged receipt of the update the same day.
The Landlord sent an email to the parking management service on 8 June 2020 and advised of the issues regarding the pub owner parking within the carpark and that parking violations had not been effectively managed. It noted that it had already been in contact about similar issues and requested information regarding the recent visits and asked whether anything else could be done.
The Landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 10 June 2020 and stated the following:
1. It confirmed that it would not be able to address parking related issues through its complaints procedure, although acknowledged that the Resident’s complaint was in relation to how it had managed the contract with the parking management service.
2. It stated that it had contacted the pub owners and the parking management service to discuss the issue of parking as well as reviewing its contract with the parking management service.
3. It stated that it felt it had made enquiries with the correct contacts and had monitored the visits carried out by the parking management service in order to find a solution. it had requested a monthly report from the parking management service as required so that it could monitor the contract effectively. It apologised that it had not responded to the Resident’s email on 8 March 2020 as it should have done so. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for any miscommunication previously offered.
4. It understood that its actions would not resolve the issue, for this reason it had contacted the pub owners and raised the issue. It had shared the details of the vehicle to the parking management service, to enforce parking regulations. It had considered injunction proceedings against the pub owner but could only continue with this process if it gained sufficient evidence of the issue. It requested that the Resident continue to keep records of when the pub owner or his tenants were parking in the carpark should the Landlord need to take legal action.
5. It had requested that the parking lines were repainted when its staff were in a position to do so after the Covid-19 restrictions had lifted.

Assessment and findings

The Tenancy Agreement states that residents are only allowed to park on their allocated parking spaces and would not be permitted to park without a valid permit. The Landlord has explained that a parking management service is contracted to manage the carpark on the Landlord’s behalf and therefore any complaints in relation to parking at the site should be brought to the parking management company directly by residents. The Landlord would not be obliged to address concerns about individual parking issues although it would be reasonable for the Landlord to forward any individual concerns to the parking management service on a resident’s behalf. As the parking management company are contracted by the Landlord, it would be appropriate for the Landlord to address concerns related to the performance of service and monitor this to ensure the service provided was to a reasonable standard on behalf of its residents.
The Resident had stated that the parking management service were not carrying out their patrols effectively and the carpark was being used regularly by vehicles without permits. She stated that the owners and tenants of the local pub were also regularly parking on the site causing obstruction. She requested that the Landlord liaise with its parking management service to ensure that regular patrols took place and that tickets were issued consistently. She also requested the Landlord to engage with the nearby pub to ensure the owner and tenants of the pub did not park in the private carpark for any other reason than to drop off goods.
There has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s concerns about parking on the site and the actions of the parking management service. It was reasonable that the Landlord would not consider complaints about parking issues in its complaint procedure and advised the Resident to raise her concerns directly to the contracted service, in the first instance as the parking management service were contracted for such matters. Following her concerns that the service was not being provided effectively, it was reasonable for the Landlord to contact the parking management service and request further details of the patrols which had taken place in order to monitor this service itself.
The Landlord is not obliged to change its contracted parking management service based on an individual complaint. This Service understands that the Landlord would need sufficient and consistent evidence that its parking management team were failing to carry out their contracted actions before making any changes. It was appropriate for the Landlord to request monthly reports from the parking management company in order to monitor the service and request further action where needed. It would be the Landlord’s discretion to make changes to the contracted parking management service if it felt necessary and it is appropriate that the Landlord would monitor the situation before acting. The Landlord has also taken action and ordered the repainting of the parking lines in the carpark to ensure the parking spaces are marked clearly, which may help permit holders park consistently within their boundaries and prevent obstructions.
Furthermore, the Landlord has taken steps to communicate with the owner of the pub in order to explain its position in relation to the unauthorised parking and has highlighted the possible need for injunction proceedings should this behaviour continue. It is noted that the Landlord was not obliged to take this action as the parking should be managed by the parking management service. It is reasonable that the Landlord asked the Resident to report any continued unauthorised parking to gain evidence should this later be needed for court proceedings. The Landlord acted reasonably by not seeking an injunction against the pub owners at this stage. For a landlord to take formal action in respect of this behaviour, a landlord requires corroborative evidence of the persistent breaches to support formal action. It would need to provide evidence that it had attempted to resolve the matter informally before taking legal action.
The Landlord has acted in line with its obligations by communicating with the parking management service and has taken steps to carry out each of the Resident’s requests highlighted in her original complaint. It is recommended that the Landlord continue to monitor the situation and communicate with the parking management service where appropriate, to determine where further action may be required to resolve future parking concerns.

The Landlord’s communication and complaint handling of these matters

The Resident has expressed dissatisfaction regarding the length of time the issue has taken to be resolved and the Landlord’s communication during this time. As previously stated, this Service cannot address issues prior to March 2020 when the complaint had been raised, although we can address the Landlord’s complaint handling, whether this was completed in a reasonable timeframe and whether it communicated effectively during this time.
The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that where it cannot consider a complaint within its policy- for example, complaints where the Landlord has no responsibility – it would explain why and offer advice or support to try and help the resident resolve the issue. It would aim to resolve the complaint at the first point of contact; in cases where this is not possible, it would treat the issue as a complaint. It would provide a stage one complaint response formally within 5 working days; where the complaint requires a more detailed investigation, it would agree the timescale with the resident. If the resident was dissatisfied with the Landlord’s response, the complaint could be escalated to stage two of the Landlord’s process. It states that the timescale to respond would usually be no more than seven days; if it is likely to take longer, this must be agreed in advance with the resident and a full explanation provided.
The Resident initially raised her complaint to the Landlord on 22 March 2020 via its online portal. The Landlord provided an informal response on 23 May 2020. The Resident highlighted the next day that she wished the Landlord to address her concerns as a complaint and again on 8 April 2020. The Landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 April 2020. It provided a formal response on 27 April 2020 which it stated was its final position on the matter.
The delay in providing a stage one complaint response to the Resident was reasonable as the Landlord apologised for the delay and provided an appropriate explanation that it had not been able to continue its business as usual due to the impact of Covid-19; this is reasonable as the circumstances were not within the Landlord’s control. Whilst the impact of Covid-19 is outside of the Landlord’s control, the Landlord did not satisfactorily manage the Resident’s expectations in relation to the time it would take to receive a response or agreed a timeframe in line with its Complaints Policy.
Furthermore, the Landlord’s stage one complaint response on 27 April 2020 stated that it was the Landlord’s final position on the matter, and it did not explain how the Resident could escalate her complaint should she remain dissatisfied. Whilst the Resident took steps to request that her complaint was escalated on 14 May 2020, the Landlord’s failure to signpost the Resident toward the next steps was likely to have further delayed its final response and inconvenienced the Resident. There was also a delay in responding to the escalation request. While the Landlord made contact within seven days it did not seek to agree a longer response period in line with its policy. The landlord did later confirm an extended time period to the resident and provided an explanation for this which the resident did not object to.
This Service appreciates that the Landlord may have had difficulty maintaining its business as usual during any Covid-19 restrictions, although the Landlord should have clearly agreed a timescale in which the response would be issued with the Resident in line with its Complaint Policy, should this take longer than expected. It should also have directed her to the next steps at each stage of its complaint process in order to manage her expectations and prevent any inconvenience. In view of this, the Landlord should offer an award of compensation to the Resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its lack of clear communication and delay in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s concerns about parking management at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The Landlord has taken appropriate steps to engage with the parking management service and has requested a monthly report of the patrols carried out in order to monitor the performance of the contracted service. It has also requested that further patrols are carried out at the Resident’s request. The Landlord has also communicated with the pub owners in order to explain its position in relation to the unauthorised parking and has highlighted the possible need for injunction proceedings should this behaviour continue. It has also taken action and ordered the repainting of the parking lines in the carpark to ensure the parking spaces are marked clearly.
The Landlord has partially explained the reasons for its delay in responding at the early stage of the Resident’s complaint, although it has not acted in line with its Complaints Policy and agreed timescales for each complaint stage with the Resident. Furthermore, the Landlord failed to signpost the Resident to stage two of its internal complaints process which is likely to have further delayed the process. The Landlord should pay compensation for the inconvenience this caused the Resident, as set out below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The Landlord is to pay the Resident £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Landlord continues to monitor the actions taken by the parking management service in order to ensure the service provided is efficient.
It is recommended that the Landlord provides clear timescales to its residents to manage their expectations of the time it may take to receive a response, especially as business may not be as usual during any Covid-19 related restrictions.