Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202201700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201700

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

5 August 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking enforcement.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder residing on a leaseholder estate of the landlord.
  2. On 2 to 3 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that other people were parking in the space that had been allocated to her by it. She also explained that people were parking outside of the spaces, which had made it difficult for her to navigate her car, and had once almost caused damage to her car. The resident therefore asked the landlord on 5 October 2021 for some kind of parking enforcement to be implemented, as there were no signs displaying parking rules and she was not the only one experiencing this, which it agreed to look into.
  3. Subsequently, the resident provided photographic evidence of the parking infringements to the landlord, which visited the area on 14 October 2021. It noted someone parking in the wrong place and, as it was unsure of who had done so, it agreed that it would write to all residents, informing them that parking outside of spaces was not permitted and about possible parking enforcement, which it agreed to monitor. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2021 for an update and it advised her on 8 November 2021 that it had not yet written to residents, as it was reviewing its contract for parking enforcement and was drafting a newsletter that would include the parking issues.
  4. The resident then asked the landlord for a timescale for a response regarding the parking infringements. It advised her that, once it had an update or timescale, it would write to residents explaining the parking rules. Subsequently, the landlord advised on 11 November 2021 that it had put up parking notices and a notice on the car that the resident had previously provided a photograph of. On 8 December 2021, she looked for an update on a resolution or timescales for the parking infringements, and it advised on that date that the newsletter had now been sent to residents and that it was changing the parking enforcement company that it used, delaying the process so it would not be able to give any specific dates.
  5. However, the landlord asked its new parking enforcement contractor to include the resident’s estate as one on which parking was enforced. It advised that it was visiting the parking area weekly, placing notices on cars parked incorrectly, but had not noted any cars being parked outside of spaces. The landlord advised the resident that she could install a parking arm in the meantime, once she received its permission for this.
  6. On 7 January 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint that there were still no clear signs to indicate the parking rules, and that she had been advised by the landlord that parking enforcement was planned, but then that this was being looked at. She reported that this meant that she was unable to use her parking space, despite paying a service charge, and wanted this resolved within a two to four weeks and signs advising of parking restrictions. The resident also requested compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience from having to email and send photographic evidence to the landlord, with no subsequent action taken by it.
  7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 18 January 2022 did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that she had been advised that parking enforcement would be brought in if issues with parking continued, and a newsletter was hand delivered to every apartment advising that parking was allocated and that residents should only park in their own spaces, with no parking outside of spaces. The landlord also advised the resident that she could write to it to get permission to install a parking arm in her parking space, so that no one else could use this, but it disagreed that it had not kept her updated in a timely manner, and said that matters were being proactively investigated to address her concerns.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure on 18 January 2022, complaining that the landlord’s signs and newsletters were from a significant time before and meant that she still had photographs to evidence that the parking problems were ongoing. Therefore, she believed that it had not been effective in managing the problem, that the parking enforcement that was to have been looked at months earlier had not happened, and that notes being left on cars and a newsletter were not parking enforcement.
  9. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 10 February 2022 advised that it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that it had visited the estate regularly, any vehicles outside of parking spaces had notices placed on them, and its inspections over the last few months had not found any cars parked outside spaces, Although the landlord appreciated that this was happening outside of its visiting times, as evidenced by the resident. It added that it had contacted a parking enforcement company, would be advising residents soon of the services that the company offered, and reiterated its previous advice about a parking arm.
  10. The landlord subsequently carried out a parking survey of the leaseholders on the resident’s estate on 4 April 2022, although only 9 out of 102 leaseholders responded and only one of those wanted full parking enforcement, while the remaining 8 opted for some form of self-enforcement. However, the latter option required a ‘resident champion’, for which those who had opted for the ‘resident champion’ did not want to nominate themselves as such. The landlord’s weekly checks of the parking area also found no other cars in the resident’s space or outside any other spaces, although it still acknowledged that this could have been occurring at other times, which had been attributed to delivery drivers’ brief visits.
  11. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord should make an immediate decision regarding parking enforcement on her estate. If residents voted against enforcement then she would welcome a parking arm in her parking space at its expense within a reasonable timeframe. The resident also wanted the landlord to compensate her for her time spent chasing it for this and for poor communication on its part. In June 2022, its subsequent internal email advised that it would speak to a repairs officer to see if a parking arm or hatched area could be installed opposite her parking space.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s lease confirms that the common parts of her building include the parking spaces and area there, for which the landlord’s residents are required to comply with reasonable regulations made by it that it considers necessary to secure orderliness or perform its obligations. It is permitted to add services there that it deems reasonably necessary or desirable for good estate management or the benefit of residents, who are only able to park in their own single allocated parking spaces. Residents are not allowed to park elsewhere at the building, park so as to cause nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to other residents, or to obstruct or restrict access to the parking spaces or area there, where commercial vehicles are not permitted to park at all.
  2. At the time that the resident reported parking infringements to the landlord there was reportedly a lack of signage displaying parking rules, and so she asked it for parking enforcement, with it responding to her by taking suitable steps for this. It did so by agreeing to look into options to resolve this, visiting the parking area, noting that a car had been parked wrongly, agreeing to write to all residents to informing them that parking outside spaces was not permitted and possible enforcement for this, and agreeing to monitor the situation.
  3. However, the resident first reported the parking infringements on 2 to 3 October 2021 to the landlord and, after taking and agreeing to the above actions on 14 October 2021, it did not take any further steps for this until it put up parking notices and a notice on the wrongly parked car almost one month later on 11 November 2021. Its newsletter to residents containing the parking rules also did not go out until the 8 December 2021, which was almost two months after it had agreed to write to them.
  4. The landlord ought to have instead done so sooner given that the resident’s lease confirmed that other residents were not permitted to park in her space, park other than in their own spaces, obstruct or restrict access to her space, or allow commercial vehicles to be parked in the parking area. She nevertheless continued to report such infringements to it, and to chase its response to them, during this period.
  5. After the resident asked the landlord for parking enforcement on 5 October 2021, it did not then consult residents on possible enforcement options at her building until it surveyed them on 4 April 2022, which was approximately six months later. In the meantime, it advised her on 8 December 2021 that it was visiting the parking area weekly and that she could install a parking arm with its permission, which was reasonable, but she continued to report parking infringements and a lack of signage with parking rules to it during this period. The length of time that the landlord took to arrange the consultation without arranging suitable further alternative parking control measures in the interim, such as increased signage, was therefore not appropriate.
  6. It was understandable that the landlord had to wait for a parking enforcement contract review, change its parking enforcement contractor and prepare a residents’ consultation. However, it should have kept the resident updated on the progress of each of these steps, given her reports of ongoing parking infringements, as well as considering other steps to try and resolve this in the meantime.
  7. Although it was reasonable that the landlord did not then implement parking enforcement, given the lack of residents’ responses to its survey and the unwillingness of respondents for either full enforcement or to participate in some form of self-enforcement by becoming a ‘resident champion’. While it is of concern that most residents did not respond to the survey, they were not obliged to do so, and it was not required to spend more time or resources in seeking further responses from them in light of their lack of engagement with this, or to install a parking arm solely for the resident’s use in her space. However, it would therefore have been preferable if the landlord had then progressed other options to try and resolve her complaint.
  8. The landlord’s delay in acting to seek to resolve the parking infringements that the resident reported nevertheless meant that it is concerning that it did not consider compensating her for this under its compensation policy. This recommended compensation from £150 each for failures of its service and for residents’ time and trouble from unnecessary effort in communicating with it.
  9. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that she experienced as a result of this. It has also been recommended below to try and resolve her complaint by providing her with the outcome of its enquiry to see if a parking arm or hatched area could be installed opposite her parking space, considering installing increased signage and providing her with the outcome of its consideration, and reviewing its staff’s relevant training needs in light of its failings in her case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking enforcement.

Order and Recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 total compensation within four weeks. This is made up of:
    1. £150 for her having to chase it to resolve her reports of parking infringements and to provide her with updates, causing her unnecessary effort in communicating with it.
    2. £150 for the failure of its service in delaying seeking to resolve her reports of parking infringements without further suitable alternative parking control measures in the meantime.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide the resident with the outcome of its enquiry to see if a parking arm or hatched area could be installed opposite her parking space, if it has not done so already.
    2. Consider installing increased signage outlining parking rules at the resident’s building and provide her with the outcome of its consideration, if it has not done so already.
    1. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their to response to reports of parking infringements at its leaseholder estates to seek to ensure that these are timely, up-to-date and appropriate, in light of the resident’s case.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.