Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202321906)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321906

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

17 September 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:
   1. Concerns regarding his allocated parking space and the associated parking management.
   2. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of a 1-bedroom flat with the lease beginning in May 2011. The property has an allocated parking space and parking is managed by a third party parking management service.
3. In July and August 2023, the resident contacted both the landlord and the parking management service to request more frequent patrols on the estate as his parking space “was often occupied” upon his return from work. The landlord advised the resident that it had requested patrol logs from the parking management service for the previous 2 weeks. It went on to explain that this would allow the landlord to see when patrols had occurred and enable it to request additional patrols at different times to ensure unauthorised vehicles received tickets.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 September 2023, saying that he had experienced daily parking issues for the past 12 years despite having an allocated parking space. He explained that there was no free nearby parking, forcing him to use a paid car park for which he wanted reimbursement. He described the ongoing stress of arriving home and the difficulties caused by not having a parking space, noting that his frequent contact with the parking management service was affecting his mental health.
5. On 7 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It then provided its stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. It said that it had contacted the parking management service which reported the site had been patrolled at least 7 times per month. Furthermore, during 43 site visits “only” 18 unauthorised vehicles were found, resulting in penalty notices. The landlord also provided information about parking self-enforcement through an app and offered to request additional patrols for a limited time to address the issue. It asked the resident to confirm any particular times or days when parking appeared to be more problematic so that it could ensure a “more targeted approach”. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the impact the situation had on him.
6. On 5 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord outlining some queries regarding the stage 1 response. On 23 December 2023, he requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. On 29 December 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and explained that if he “remained unhappy” with the stage 1 response he could consider escalating the complaint to stage 2.
7. On 13 March 2024, following intervention from this Service, the landlord contacted the resident advising him it was investigating his stage 2 complaint and asked him to clarify details of the issues. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. It said that:
   1. It was unable to review the “entire history” due to the length of time that had passed.
   2. The resident had not provided supporting evidence of costs incurred, which limited its ability to provide a more thorough analysis of the events.
   3. Due to its system limitations following a new system install, it did not have access to all previous reported issues.
   4. It had agreed for additional signage to be installed at the site.
   5. It would reimburse the resident for the cost of a bollard he had installed.
   6. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £550 compensation.
8. During recent contact from the landlord, it explained that the resident’s bay was situated in a row of 2 that had a telescopic bollard. This meant if his car was not in the bay and the bollard was up, there would not be any means for somebody else to use his bay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident said that he had been experiencing issues with the parking over a 12-year period and wanted to be compensated for this period. While we do not dispute this, we encourage residents to raise unresolved complaints to us in a timely manner so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed. As issues become historical, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint.
10. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the parking situation had on his health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding his allocated parking space and the associated parking management

11. The landlord has said that it does not have a parking enforcement policy and parking is managed by a parking management service. Additionally, it is not a service that residents pay for and the parking management service issues parking permits. Any disputes regarding payment or validity of a parking fine are dealt with directly between residents and the parking management service, without the involvement of the landlord.
12. The case notes for 27 and 28 July 2023 show that the resident reported to both the landlord and parking management service that he experienced frequent difficulties parking in his allocated parking space. On 1 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident explaining that it had been liaising with the parking management service regarding increasing their patrols and would obtain their visit logs. This was a positive response by the landlord as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, communicated with the parking management service to better understand the situation, and took steps to gather evidence of the parking activity in order to monitor this service itself. This demonstrated a proactive approach showing the landlord’s willingness to address the resident’s issues and exploring potential solutions.
13. In the resident’s complaint of 1 September 2023, he said that he continued to face daily parking issues and expressed concerns that the landlord was not using a “trusted enforcement company”. He went on to say that he had been unable to use his allocated parking space freely for the past 12 years and requested the landlord be more proactive, including providing compensation for parking costs incurred over that period. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. It said that during43 site visits, 18 unauthorised vehicles were identified, indicating a relatively low level of parking infringements. The landlord explained that this suggested the current level of service from the parking management provider was sufficient. This was reasonable by the landlord, as it sought relevant evidence and provided a reasoned explanation for its approach.
14. The landlord is not required to alter its contracted parking management service based on a single complaint. It was reasonable for it to request reports from the parking management service to monitor the service being provided and seek further action if necessary. Any decisions to change the contracted service would be at the landlord’s discretion.
15. In its response, the landlord also provided the resident with information in relation to a self-enforcement. It said this allowed residents to capture time/dated photographic evidence of any unauthorised vehicle parked in their allocated bays. This approach was resolution focused, as it empowered the resident to gather the necessary evidence for the parking management service to issue relevant tickets by post to the offending vehicles.
16. The landlord also offered the resident £150 compensation and suggested it could make a referral to its support and assessment team who may be able to offer some “emotional support”. This showed that the landlord had thoughtfully considered the resident’s complaint and recognised the impact it had on him, taking steps to offer appropriate support. The offer of compensation was reasonable and aligned with our dispute resolution principle to put things right.
17. Following intervention from this Service, on 13 March 2024 the landlord contacted the resident in regard to his stage 2 escalation requests. The complaint handling aspect of this has been covered later in this report. The case notes indicated that the landlord tried to contact the resident by phone and followed this up with an email to clarify details of the complaint. This was good practice by the landlord to ensure it had a full understanding of the resident’s concerns.
18. On the same day, the resident responded confirming that he had received the compensation but did not consider it sufficient. He also suggested that it would be appropriate for the landlord to install signage near his parking space indicating that it was an allocated bay or that parking was not permitted. Additionally, he noted that the parking bollard that was in situ was not operational, which was due to be inspected by the landlord on 18 March 2024.
19. The evidence shows that during April 2024, the landlord liaised with the resident and the parking management service regarding the installation of signage, the bollard, and the resident’s request for £12,000 reimbursement of costs. On 9 April 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it would be increasing its offer of compensation and reimburse costs associated with the signage and bollard he paid to have installed once the resident provided supporting evidence. It was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of costs incurred as this ensured transparency in the compensation process. This was also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says evidence may be required “to ensure the correct level of compensation is applied”.
20. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. The response clearly outlined the action it had taken, addressing each of the resident’s concerns. It explained that without evidence to substantiate his claim for £12,000 compensation it would not be able to reimburse the substantial amount. Additionally, its records did not show that he had made the landlord aware of prior incidents, but it accepted that this may be due to its system limitations following a new system install, for which it offered compensation. This was a reasonable response acknowledging its limitations for which it offered compensation and provided a fair explanation regarding the inability to process the £12,000 compensation claim without supporting evidence.
21. Additionally, the landlord’s response confirmed it would reimburse the costs associated with the bollard and apologised that its surveyor had been unable to inspect it earlier due to the space being occupied. It also advised the resident that he could report any unauthorised parking using an enforcement app. In addition to the £150 offered at stage 1, the landlord offered the resident a further £400, broken down into £200 for service failure including poor record keeping and £200 for the resident’s time and trouble.
22. By offering reimbursement for the bollard costs and providing guidance on reporting unauthorised parking, the landlord demonstrated a willingness to address the resident’s specific concerns in a practical manner. The offer of compensation recognised the landlord’s service failures and the resident’s time and trouble while also managing expectations regarding the level of evidence.
23. In conclusion, the landlord demonstrated a genuine commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns, while also offering him support through its support and assessment team. It liaised with the parking management service and reviewed its site visits to ensure ongoing oversight. It also suggested the use of a self-enforcement app to help the resident report unauthorised parking and agreed to fulfil his request for additional signage near his parking bay. By providing a clear explanation of the actions taken, acknowledging the record keeping failure from its system limitations and offering practical solutions, the landlord showed transparency in its efforts to resolve the issues fairly. We find the total award of £550 offered at stages 1 and 2 was reasonable and proportionate, reflecting both the service failures identified and the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
24. Therefore, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding his allocated parking space and the associated parking management.

Complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response to be issued, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. At each stage it says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days.
26. The evidence shows that the resident raised a complaint on 1 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 7 September 2023, which falls within 4 working days and aligned with its policy timescale. The landlord provided its stage 1 response dated 15 September 2023, which was 6 working days after the acknowledgement. This was consistent with its policy and was an appropriate and timely response to the resident’s concerns.
27. On 25 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, indicating that he had not yet received the stage 1 response. The landlord responded, apologised, and stated that the response had been sent via email on 15 September 2023. Although a copy of the stage 1 response has been provided to this Service, there was no record or confirmation of the actual email being sent or received by the resident. Therefore, we are unable to say for sure that the response was sent within the landlord’s policy timescale. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, but it could have gone further by providing the resident with another copy of the stage 1 response at that time.
28. On 30 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, raising concerns about the delayed response, and requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s reply on 4 December 2023 included a copy of the stage 1 response and concluded that the complaint was closed, stating that the issue had been resolved. This was not appropriate, because the lack of clear confirmation of delivery hindered the resident’s ability to fully engage in the complaint process. Furthermore, by closing the resident’s complaint without adequately addressing his concerns or verifying the response was received failed to demonstrate that the landlord had properly followed the complaints procedure, which was unfair to the resident.
29. On 5 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord querying why his complaint had been closed and raising additional concerns. On 23 December 2023, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded on 29 December 2023 apologising for the delay and answered the resident’s concerns. While it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the additional concerns, the landlord also advised the resident to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if he remained unhappy with the stage 1 response. This was not appropriate as the resident had previously requested to escalate the complaint on 2 occasions, and this advice contributed to an unnecessary delay in resolving his complaint.
30. On 27 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had not received the compensation offered to him at stage 1 and reiterated that he was still unable to park in his designated space. Following intervention from this Service on 13 March 2024, the landlord responded outlining its understanding of the complaint and acknowledged that it failed to action the resident’s previous escalation requests.
31. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 April 2024, advising that it would require an additional 10-working-day extension in order to provide a full response. This was appropriate and aligned with its complaint policy, which says if it cannot respond within a 20-working-day timeframe, it will keep complainants informed and agree a new response time.
32. The landlord and resident continued their correspondence, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 April 2024. This was 29 working days after the escalation was raised and 11 working days after its extension request. This exceeded the landlord’s policy timescale by 9 working days, and was also 1 working day outside of its extension request timescale. The stage 2 response time was therefore not appropriate. Additionally, it had been over 4 months since the resident’s initial request and the landlord had missed 3 previous opportunities to provide the stage 2 response (30 November 2023, 23 December 2023, and 27 February 2024). The landlord’s failure to properly follow the complaints procedure caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience during this period, which was evidently frustrating for him.
33. The stage 2 response was clearly structured, using separate bullet points/headings to address each of the resident’s concerns. This approach provided clarity and demonstrated a willingness to comprehensively respond to the complaint, which was particularly helpful for the resident. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay. We consider this to be reasonable redress, which aligned with both our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy for poor complaint handling and where a resident had expended an “unnecessary effort” communicating with the landlord.
34. We have also considered the award of £200 for the time and trouble the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 in relation to the complaint as a whole. Therefore, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns regarding his allocated parking space and the associated parking management.
    2. Complaint.

Recommendations

36. It is recommended that the landlord, if has not already done so:
    1. Pays the resident the £700 compensation it offered him, broken down into:
       1. £550 previously offered to him regarding his allocated parking space and parking management.
       2. £150 previously offered to him for the handling of his complaint.
       3. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this payment is made.
    2. Provides the resident with reimbursement for the bollard should supporting evidence be provided.
    3. Ensures that the appropriate signage has been installed.