Longhurst Group Limited (202224549)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224549

Longhurst Group Limited

2 May 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for an allocated disabled parking space.
2. The related complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy started on 16 September 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow in an Older Person’s Living Scheme (the scheme).
The resident is registered disabled and has health conditions. The landlord told this Service that it has the resident’s disabilities recorded on its systems.
Around the time the resident moved into the property, the landlord’s scheme manager (SM) verbally agreed for the resident to have exclusive use of the first parking space outside her front door on account of her disability. Its SM said residents in the vicinity with cars had agreed to this arrangement. Whilst this space was not a designated disabled parking space, due to the area being wider, this made it more accessible for disabled residents such as the resident.

The scope of the investigation

In her formal complaint the resident mentioned anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her immediate next door neighbour (the neighbour), stemming from the situation with parking spaces at the scheme. In its complaint response the landlord told her it had opened an ASB case in response to this report. The resident confirmed to this Service on 6 February 2024 that her complaint concerned the landlord taking the parking space away from her and not her neighbour’s behaviour. Therefore, the complaint regarding ASB will not be considered in this investigation.
In her formal complaint, the resident claimed that the landlord had not acted in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider if a landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to its equality duties under the Equality Act 2010 or award damages, that is for the courts to determine. However, we will consider if a landlord has given due regard to its obligations and provide redress for any detriment caused to the resident if not already provided by the landlord.

Summary of events

In around October 2021, the resident and her neighbour had a disagreement regarding parking in the two accessible parking spaces in front of their houses. The resident’s partner had parked his car in the second space, whilst they had been off sick from work, and as a result the neighbour told the resident he would start to park his car in the first parking space (used by the resident).
The resident and her neighbour told the landlord of the situation at that time and its SM made attempts to find a resolution that both the resident and the neighbour were happy with.
Subsequently on 20 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and her neighbour proposing “a solution” to the parking issues. Within its letter the landlord stated that the resident should “keep” the (first) parking space, as was previously agreed with all the residents with cars in that car park, and that the neighbour should park in the second space next to the resident. The landlord said the neighbour should leave “plenty of room” to enable her to get in and out of the car. The landlord’s letter stated that the resident’s partner would park his car in another space in the car park and not in the second space. The landlord stated that if they all “stuck” to this arrangement it believed it would resolve the situation.
On 16 February 2022, the neighbour told the landlord that the resident had not kept to the agreement and on 6 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had blocked her (car) in by parking too close meaning she was unable to get into/out of her car. The parties made a number of further similar reports to the landlord over the next few months.
It is not clear from the available evidence what, if any action the landlord took to resolve the situation but it later told this Service that from 5 July 2022 “it was agreed from this point that the agreement would no longer take place”.
On 10 August 2022, the resident complained about not being able to live independently because her neighbour kept parking in the first space outside of her house. She said if, as the landlord had told her “in the office”, the agreement no longer applied and her neighbour was free to park his car in either the first or second space, the landlord was discriminating against her as a registered disabled person. The resident said that she was first given the parking space verbally 3 years previously and that other residents agreed for her to have it due to her disabilities. The resident also blamed her neighbour for the situation as he had “decided to tell lies” so that she lost her parking space.
The resident explained whilst the neighbour had a blue badge, he did not use it and was able to work whereas she automatically got a blue badge as she was registered disabled. She acknowledged there were other disabled residents residing in the scheme but said she believed her disabilities were different to theirs. The resident also mentioned other residents in the scheme who she believed had been given parking spaces by the landlord.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord’s team leader (TL) replied stating that the landlord did not have allocated parking as there were more properties in the scheme than there were parking spaces and that there were a high number of the residents that had a level of disability. The landlord said the first few spaces therefore were used for people with disability badges. It stated she and her neighbour could park in the first and second spaces as they both had disability badges. The landlord said however that the neighbour had advised that the resident broke the agreement by letting her partner park in the second space therefore, the neighbour would use the first space when it was available. It stated that the verbal agreement only worked if all the parties involved agreed. The landlord also said it could not discuss other residents’ disabilities with her.
On the same date the resident told the landlord she wanted to take her complaint further and the landlord responded that it would log a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s senior service manager (SSM) called the resident on 26 August 2022 to discuss her complaint. Its note of the call did not detail the conversation but stated details were sent to its complaints team.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated that whilst it appreciated the impact parking had on the resident and her ability to independently access her vehicle, parking at the scheme was “at a premium”, therefore, it would be unfair for it to allocate parking spaces to specific residents.
Within its response the landlord also stated:
1. Parking at the scheme was on a first come, first serve basis and did not form part of her tenancy.
2. It understood that this was difficult for residents and therefore it tried to provide support where possible and come to amicable agreements between impacted parties.
3. It understood that such an informal agreement was previously made with support of its previous SM who followed up the agreement in writing. This however remained an informal agreement between neighbours/residents of the scheme.
4. It explained that where one (or more) parties were no longer in agreement with this, it was unable to uphold or enforce this. It said there was no express provision for parking under the Equality Act or legal right to disabled parking within private carparks.
5. It explained that as a landlord it was unable to assess an individual’s need for parking and would therefore attempt to make the most reasonable adjustments to communal spaces to support the overall needs of the scheme community.
6. It said that having looked at the site plans and photos, it believed that creating designated disabled spaces would create an unfair disadvantage to residents as two spaces would be lost for each disabled space. It had however spoken to its aids and adaptation team who would assess the area to see if raised areas between parking spaces 2 and 3 and between 4 and 5 could be levelled to create easier access in the other spaces.
7. It would encourage efforts to re-establish an informal agreement to parking arrangements and would be happy to arrange mediation for this if all parties agreed.
On 5 September 2022, the landlord received a letter from the resident reiterating that it had discriminated against her. The resident explained that she had explained her disabilities and medical conditions to its TL so she understood why the former SM had given her the parking space outside her door. The resident said however that its TL replied informing her that she could not discuss another person’s disabilities.
The resident said she appreciated its offer to provide more accessible parking spaces to accommodate her wheelchair or scooter, however, her disability meant she could not walk far without aids. The resident explained that having the first parking space had meant she had been able to get to her car without having to walk too far and be in pain.
The resident referenced disability regulation and said that she had not been treated fairly as its TL had listened to her neighbour who had made her “look bad” and then told her the agreement did not stand anymore as it was not working. She said that she had not previously been told this.
On 13 September 2022, the resident called the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process as she was unhappy with its response. It told her it had received her letter on 5 September 2022 which had been logged at stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging her stage 2 complaint and told her its complaints team would be contact her within 5 working days.
In a response from the resident on the same date, she reiterated that she needed to park in the first space to continue to lead an independent life and that the neighbour was preventing this because when she went out he was parking his car there. The resident explained it was stressful whilst she was out to know that she may not be able to park her car in the first space on her return. She was unhappy that the landlord had taken away the agreement when she was previously told that the space was hers.
The landlord’s call note dated 13 October 2022 indicated it called the resident to discuss the issues at the scheme including parking. This stated it advised it would look into a possible move to an alternative property more suited to her needs and told the resident the staff member who was going to draft the response would do so after they got back from annual leave in a weeks’ time.
On 27 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response within which it acknowledged the resident’s request for it to allocate her a specific parking space. The landlord said as discussed during their telephone conversation, it was unable to allocate parking spaces at the scheme due to the limited number of spaces available. It said it was awaiting quote from its contractor to level the areas between spaces 2 and 3, and 4 and 5 to create easier access to the other spaces. When the quote was received, it said this would be reviewed and a decision would be made as to whether the work would go ahead.
The landlord reiterated that whilst the previous SM had put in place an informal arrangement with residents for her to use the parking space outside her property, it was unable to enforce this arrangement as it was informal and only in place while all parties were agreeable to it. It appreciated this must be frustrating to her but explained that allocated parking was not provided under her tenancy agreement, nor the tenancy agreement of any of the other residents at the scheme.
It said it had discussed, during their telephone conversation, that if the resident would like it to support her with seeking alternative accommodation that did have an allocated parking space, it would provide this. The landlord stated that it did have schemes with allocated parking and if she was interested in applying, it could assist her with this.
The landlord stated it empathised with her situation and apologised for the experience she had had but said it hoped that its explanation provided her with greater understanding of how it reached this conclusion.

Events post the landlord’s final response

On 6 January 2023, the landlord raised work with its contractor to level and tarmac areas next to 2 parking spaces to enable disabled access.
On 23 January 2023, the resident contacted this Service and told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to take away her parking space that had been previously given to her due to her disability and health conditions (she was registered disabled and had osteoarthritis and high blood pressure).
On 1 March 2023, the work to the parking spaces was completed.
In response to our further information request, on 19 April 2024, the landlord told us that following the neighbour telling it the agreement had been broken, it decided the agreement would no longer apply on 5 July 2022 but that it did not have a specific log of when it told the resident of this.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies

There is no provision for allocated parking under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord told us it does not have a published policy on parking for disabled residents.
The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process whereby it was required to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. At stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process it will contact the resident within 20 working days to seek clarification and gain further understanding of the complaint.
Its policy also states it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days, however it this timescale was not possible it would explain this to the resident and this would not exceed a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated disabled parking space.

The resident is registered disabled, has an adapted car and has explained due to her disabilities and health conditions, she is unable to walk far without being in pain. This Service recognises that having no allocated parking space near her property (or at all) has caused significant distress to the resident as it has affected her ability to independently access her car and lead an independent life. However, there is no provision for allocated parking under her tenancy agreement. The landlord has explained there are 14 car parking spaces near the resident’s property and a further 15 spaces on the scheme, whereas there are 56 properties within the scheme. The landlord has also confirmed there are no designated parking spaces for any of the properties and that parking was unallocated meaning that residents were permitted to park in specific spaces on a first come first serve basis.
The landlord was entitled to decide its approach to parking and in the circumstances described, particularly that there were fewer parking spaces than properties, its decision to have unallocated parking was reasonable. However, it is clear that when the resident first moved to the scheme in 2019, the landlord verbally told her that she could use the first space in the bay at the front of her property exclusively due to her disability as this was more accessible. It said that other residents had agreed to this. In its responses the landlord explained this was an informal agreement that would only remain in place whilst her neighbours agreed to it. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate it clearly explained these terms to the resident at the time. This was important in order to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the nature of the agreement.
Furthermore, the landlord has told this Service that it does not have a published policy on parking for disabled residents. Having policies in place demonstrates openness and transparency and manages residents’ expectations around the service they could expect to receive from the landlord. It also empowers residents to hold the landlord to account when problems arise. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have had a clear policy on parking for disabled residents particularly in a scheme for older people where the proportion of residents with disabilities is likely to be higher. The lack of any such policy therefore is a failing by the landlord.
By October 2021, relations between the resident and the neighbour, who also held a disabled badge, had deteriorated due to a disagreement about use of the first and second parking spaces. This appears to have stemmed from an allegation by the neighbour that the resident’s partner had been using the second space (this space was also accessible for disabled residents). The landlord became involved and suggested a solution whereby the resident would continue to use the first space, the neighbour would park his car in the second space and the resident’s partner would park elsewhere in the scheme and not in the second space. The landlord confirmed this arrangement in writing to both parties on 20 December 2021.
It was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to try to resolve the situation and find a solution which all parties were happy with. However again, it did not take the opportunity to remind the resident at this stage that the agreement for her to park in the first space exclusively was informal and subject to the agreement of nearby neighbours. Its ongoing failure to be clear about the limitations of such an agreement indicates poor communication by the landlord.
Following allegations from both the resident and her neighbour from February 2022 onwards about the other breaching the previously mentioned arrangement, the landlord then decided it was unable to uphold or enforce the informal agreement. In her formal complaint raised on 10 August 2022, the resident complained about the neighbour parking in her space and referenced being told by the landlord “in the office” that the agreement for her to use the space exclusively no longer applied, however, she sought confirmation of the position in relation to parking. This service found no record of the landlord having explained its decision in relation to the change in parking to the resident prior to her complaint and so we asked the landlord for clarification on this. The landlord told us it decided the agreement would no longer apply on 5 July 2022 but that it did not have a specific log of when it told the resident of this.
The landlord’s failure to properly inform the resident or explain its decision at the time shows it failed to take in account the impact of its decision on the resident. Bearing in mind the resident had had exclusive use of the first space for nearly 3 years, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to clearly explain the new position. Although the landlord subsequently did so in its complaint responses, its failure to do so at the time is further evidence of poor communication by the landlord and indicates a failure to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is also no evidence of the landlord offering mediation prior to its decision to withdraw the agreement. It did offer this in its stage 1 response however had it done so 6 months earlier, when the problems arose, a solution may have been found.
In her formal complaint the resident said by taking away her parking space she felt the landlord had discriminated against her as a disabled person. The landlord was under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments however the lack of any policy on parking to demonstrate it understood its obligations in this regard, left it open to concerns of this nature being raised against it.
In response to her claim, the landlord stated that because parking “was at a premium” at the scheme, it would be unfair for it to allocate specific spaces to individual residents but that it would look into making other communal spaces (near the resident’s property) more accessible to support the overall needs of the scheme community. This Service recognises that the landlord had to balance the overall needs of the scheme that included a number of residents with disabled badges, with the needs of individual residents.
In its final response it said it was awaiting a quote from its contractor to level the areas between spaces 2 and 3, and 4 and 5 to create easier access to these spaces. Its proposal to carry out works to 2 existing parking spaces to make them more accessible for disabled badge holders, shows a commitment by the landlord to improve disabled residents’ options to park at the scheme. However, the landlord did not give a timeframe which would have been appropriate in the circumstances in order to manage the resident’s expectations. Nonetheless this Service has seen evidence to show that the landlord subsequently raised this work with a subcontractor on 6 December 2022 and that the work to make additional parking spaces accessible was completed by 1 March 2023. This was reasonable.
In its final response the landlord offered to help find the resident alternative accommodation and told her it had two schemes which had with allocated parking and that it could assist her with applying for such. As the landlord was unable to provide the resident with allocated parking as per request, informing her of this option was appropriate as it could lead to the resident moving to alternative accommodation that was more suited to her needs should she want to.
In summary, the lack of any policy on how it manages disabled parking at the scheme was inappropriate and in part led to the complaint. Whilst the landlord acted reasonably by allowing the resident exclusive use of the first parking space and attempting to resolve the situation around parking with the neighbour, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations around the limitation of this informal agreement. The landlord also did not properly communicate with the resident when it decided to discontinue the agreement. These issues indicate there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s request for a disabled allocated parking space. The landlord apologised to the resident for her experience but it not acknowledge the failings we have identified in this investigation or offer appropriate redress. This indicates a lack of willingness to learn lessons from the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 10 August 2022 which on 11 August 2022 the landlord said it would log at stage 1 of its process. As the landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 2 September 2022, this was provided 6 working days outside of its timescale.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 13 September 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 15 September 2022 however provided its stage 2 response 32 working days later on 27 October 2022. This indicates there was a 12 day delay in issuing this response. Although the landlord called the resident on 13 October 2022 and told her it would issue its response “in a weeks time”, it did not keep to this timescale.
These delays in issuing its responses indicate a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints process. However, as they were only minor delays it is reasonable to conclude the impact of these on the resident was minimal. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the delays in its responses or offer redress to put these right. This is indicative of service failure by the landlord whilst handing the resident’s related complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s request for an allocated disabled parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord whilst handling the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord agreed to undertake works to the car park to provide additional accessible parking spaces for disabled residents at the scheme which was reasonable. However, it missed opportunities to clearly explain the terms of a previous informal agreement allowing the resident exclusive use of an accessible parking space and its lack of clear policy on parking for disabled residents was inappropriate.
There were delays by the landlord in providing complaint responses at both stages of its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £450 in compensation made up of:
  1. £350 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in respect to failings whilst handling the resident’s request for an allocated disabled parking space.
  2. £100 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in respect to failings whilst handling the related complaint.
Within 8 weeks, provide evidence to this Service that it has written a policy on parking for disabled residents and that it plans to publish this policy.
Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.