From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London Borough of Hounslow (202315608)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315608

London Borough of Hounslow

30 July 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. her disabled parking bay.
    2. the removal of CCTV on her estate.
    3. power cuts to her home.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 2 bed flat since August 2020.
  2. In January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she disagreed with the information that it had given her in November 2022 about her disabled parking bay. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 23 March 2023. She said unauthorised people were parking in her disabled bay and she was finding it challenging to get in and out of her car because the space was not wide enough.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023. It said its parking enforcement team were unable to stop people from parking in her disabled parking bay. However, it would explore other options and update the resident.
  5. On 24 April 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her concerns about her parking bay. She also said that the landlord had removed CCTV cameras from her estate. She said that this meant that any antisocial (ASB) behaviour on the estate would not be captured.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023. It said:
    1. the CCTV was removed because of development works on the estate. It had a static CCTV which it would arrange to be moved to areas that lacked coverage.
    2. it sent a letter to all tenants reminding them to not park in the resident’s disabled parking bay. It said that it had also requested a quote for widening the parking bay and to erect a display pole to show that it was the resident’s parking bay.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her disabled parking bay

Unauthorised people parking in the resident’s disabled parking bay

  1. On 10 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she disagreed with the information that it had provided her in November 2022 about her disabled parking bay. We have not been provided with a copy of the information, and it is unclear from the evidence what the resident’s specific concerns were. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond, but as a result the resident was left to chase the matter. This caused distress and inconvenience that could reasonably have been avoided.
  2. In response to the resident’s March 2023 complaint, the landlord stated that its parking enforcement team were unable to take action on any unauthorised people that parked in the resident’s bay. The evidence suggests that parking enforcement fell outside of the team’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the landlord said that it would seek alternative deterrence measures. This was reasonable.
  3. However, it was not until mid-May 2023 that the landlord wrote to all tenants reminding them that they should not park in the resident’s parking bay. While the decision to write to all resident’s was appropriate, it is unclear why it took the landlord 2 months to do so. There is no evidence that it was conducting further investigations into the matter during the intervening period, or considering what options may be available to it. As such, there is no evidence that the delay was unavoidable.
  4. After the letter was sent, the resident continued to raise concerns that unauthorised people were parking in her bay. Around this time the landlord told the resident that it would install a display by her parking bay to show that it was for her use only. This was an appropriate and pragmatic solution. However, the evidence shows that after it issued its stage 2 response, the landlord became aware that this would not be feasible because of the redevelopment works on the resident’s estate. The landlord would have been aware that the situation remained unresolved. As such, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what other options were available. That it did not was unreasonable.

Widening the parking bay

  1. In her March 2023 complaint, the resident explained that she was also unable to get into and out of her car sometimes because the parking bay was not wide enough. The landlord told the resident that it had asked for a quote to widen the parking bay in May 2023. While delayed this was reasonable. However, the resident chased it for an update in June and July 2023. She explained that she was still unable to get into and out of her car sometimes. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience as her concerns went unaddressed.
  2. From the evidence, it is not possible for us to establish what happened in the following months. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord proactively progressed the matter during that time. The evidence shows that it was not until August 2023 that the landlord authorised the work to expand the resident’s parking bay. This was approximately 3 months after it told the resident that it had asked for a quote to carry out the work. It is noted that the process of planning and widening the bay may not have been straightforward – taking into account the impact on the surrounding area. However, as noted above, we have seen no evidence that the landlord was proactively trying to progress the work.
  3. As with the signage, the widening works could not go ahead owing to the redevelopment of the area. It is unclear whether the landlord updated the resident or considered alternative solutions. Given the circumstances, that we have not seen evidence that it did so is unreasonable. This meant that the resident’s concerns went unresolved.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it:
    1. kept in reasonable contact with the resident about her concerns about her disabled parking bay.
    2. progressed the matter in a timely manner.
    3. considered alternative solutions to resolve the resident’s concerns about her parking bay once it became aware that it was unable to carry out the works to it.
  5. The landlord’s failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her disabled parking bay. A series of orders have been made in recognition of these failings.

The resident’s concerns about the removal of the CCTV from her estate

  1. In her escalated complaint the resident said that the landlord had removed cameras from the estate due to the redevelopment works. She said this meant that any ASB could not be captured and investigated. In response the landlord said that it would move its static camera to cover the relevant areas. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
  2. However, it is unclear whether the landlord installed the static camera as it stated that it would. There is also no evidence to show that it updated the resident on the matter. Given that the landlord made a commitment to install the camera, it would have been reasonable for it to have done so and updated the resident accordingly. This would have satisfied the resident and itself that it had followed through with its commitment. That there is no evidence that it did so is unreasonable. Therefore, we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the removal of CCTV on her estate.

The resident’s concerns about power cuts in her home

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the our Scheme states that we can consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. In this case, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the power cuts in its stage 2 response. This is a complaint handling failing which is discussed later in this report.
  2. This meant that the landlord failed to appropriately investigate the resident’s concerns that a neighbouring property may have been the cause of the power cuts. As such her concerns went unaddressed. That was unreasonable.   Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the power cuts in her home. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss whether she has any current concerns about power cuts in her home.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In her stage 1 complaint the resident explained that she was finding it challenging to get in and out of her car because her parking bay was not wide enough. However, the landlord did not address her concerns in its stage 1 response. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) states that landlords should address all aspects of a complaint. This is to ensure residents’ complaints are fully heard. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s concerns meant that she incurred time and trouble escalating this part of her complaint to stage 2. This may have been avoidable if the landlord had addressed her concerns in its stage 1 response.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2023. In accordance with the Code, we would expect the landlord to have acknowledged it within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that it did. That was unreasonable.
  4. Furthermore, the resident chased the landlord for an update on her escalated complaint approximately twice in May 2023. However, the landlord failed to respond. It was not until the resident chased the landlord again in July 2023 that it acknowledged her complaint.
  5. This meant that the resident had to wait approximately 3 months for the landlord to acknowledge and progress her complaint. This caused her distress and inconvenience as her complaint went unanswered for a prolonged period of time. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is unreasonable.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that none of the resident’s concerns raised in her escalated complaint formed part of her original complaint. However, in her April 2023escalated complaint, the resident explained that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, which included her concerns about the power cuts she was experiencing. This was included in her stage 1 complaint.
  7. The resident referred the landlord to her April 2023 escalated complaint several times when she chased it for an update. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s stage 2 response addressed the resident’s enquiries between May and July 2023 only. There is no evidence to demonstrate that it reviewed the resident’s April 2023 escalated complaint. This suggests a record keeping issue. As such, this meant that it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s escalated complaint in its final response. Therefore, the resident’s complaint went unanswered. This caused her distress and inconvenience.
  8. Given the landlord’s failings highlighted above, we have found that there was maladministration in its complaint handling. A series of orders have been made to put matters right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her disabled parking bay.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the removal of CCTV on her estate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about power cuts in her home.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £550 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about her disabled parking bay.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her concerns about the removal of CCTV on her estate.
      3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any current concerns about:
      1. her disabled parking bay. If so, it should take reasonable steps to resolve them.
      2. the CCTV on her estate. If so, it should reasonably investigate and provide the resident with a timely response. It should confirm whether it moved the static cameras as it stated that it would in its stage 2 response. If it was unable to do so, it should explain the reasons why.
      3. the power cuts in her home. If so, it should appropriately investigate her concerns.
    4. remind staff to progress escalated complaints in line with the Code.