Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202529343)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block of 90 units. However, there are only 40 parking bays available for residents. The resident has a spinal injury and receives personal independence payments (PIP) but she has not been issued with a blue badge to enable her to park in disabled parking bays. She complained to the landlord that she had been waiting for a parking bay for over 3 years.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking bay.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking bay.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Parking bay

6. The landlord did not give consistent information to the resident about whether she was on the waiting list for a parking bay. This called into question the fairness of the process. We have also seen no evidence:
   1. that it considered whether she had a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010,
   2. that it consistently records whether applicants for parking bays have disabilities,
   3. of the criteria it uses to prioritise disabled applicants.

Complaint

7. The landlord responded within appropriate timescales. However, it did not complete a thorough investigation. If it had done so, it would have identified errors in its communication and been able to correct them.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement contains a general clause about parking which says that residents should only park in designated parking spaces, but it contains no specific information about the block she lives in.
9. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
10. There is evidence that the resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024 to ask about a parking bay. The landlord confirmed she had made a previous enquiry about the issue that was still outstanding. It said it would chase up the local housing manager for a response. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded in full to this query. This failure cost her time and trouble because she had to contact it again.
11. When the resident contacted the landlord again on 24 June 2025,sheasked to apply for a parking bay because her health was deteriorating. She explained that the previous local housing manager had told her to use a specific bay but since a new manager had taken over the role this was no longer allowed. She said she could provide further medical evidence to support her application if needed.
12. The new local housing manager responded to this query on 30 June 2026. They said that they had had to deal with a lot of issues about parking since taking over the role. This had taken longer than anticipated as they had also had to rely on other parties for information. They said that residents who were allocated a parking bay paid a fee. The parking bay she had been using was allocated to another resident who was paying for it and therefore the resident could no longer use this bay. They also said that the resident was not on the waiting list and to let them know if she wanted them to put her name down.
13. However, an internal email dated 2 July 2025 said that the landlord “believed” that the resident applied when the previous manager was in post but it was “not sure if it was 3 years ago”. The landlord has since advised us that the resident has been on the list since 2022 but is behind others, some of whom have been waiting since 2015. The resident has recently provided us with a copy of an email sent by the previous housing manager dated 21 July 2022 which says that she is “currently the next priority on the waiting list”.
14. The landlord’s lack of consistency about when the resident was put on the waiting list and what position she is in has caused her distress and she has told us that she doubts the fairness of the process.
15. In another internal email the landlord said that there were no specific disabled parking bays. However, it said that it kept a separate waiting list for people that needed a bay due to a disability. The landlord then asked the resident to provide details of her disability. It is concerning that the officer that told her they would put her name on the waiting list did not ask for this information at the time. This shows a further lack of consistency in the advice given to the resident.
16. The landlord has not provided us with a written procedure on how it allocates parking spaces, so it is therefore unclear what criteria it uses when deciding who to prioritise due to a disability. It seems that it decides based on whether the resident is registered disabled and has a blue badge. However, the Act defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ (more than minor) and ‘long-term’ (lasting more than 12 months) negative effect on the ability to do normal daily activities. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident should be defined as disabled under these criteria and therefore whether it should have prioritised her application for a parking bay.
17. In summary, the landlord did not give consistent information to the resident about whether or not she was on the waiting list for a parking bay. This called into question the fairness of the process. We have also seen no evidence:
    1. that it considered whether she had a disability as defined in the Act,
    2. that it consistently records whether applicants have disabilities,
    3. of the criteria it uses to prioritise disabled applicants.

This caused distress and cost the resident time and trouble and therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her request for a parking bay.

We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of her parking bay request. This is in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which caused significant distress and/or inconvenience to the resident.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It provided stage 1 and 2 complaint responses promptly and in line with the timeframes set within the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
19. The Code also says that complaint handlers must deal with complaints on their merits, act independently, and have an open mind. They must also consider all relevant information carefully.
20. In this case the complaint handler asked the service area for information such as how long the resident had been waiting for a parking space, which was appropriate. However, it is clear from the responses that the service area was not completely sure how long the resident had been on the waiting list and that they only “believed” that she had applied when the previous manager was in place. This should have triggered further questions to make sure that the allocations process was fair and transparent but we have seen no evidence that the complaint handler asked any further questions.
21. This error means that the landlord did not effectively use the complaints process to try to resolve the issue. and therefore, there was service failure in its handling of the complaint. We have ordered it to pay £50 for the time and trouble this caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards in this range where there has been service failure by the landlord.

Learning

22. The landlord may wish to review the process currently in place to allocate parking bays to ensure that the process is fair and transparent.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. There seem to be issues with the landlord’s knowledge about when the resident was put on the waiting list which calls into question its record keeping on the matter.

Communication

24. The landlord did not always respond to the resident’s queries in a timely manner.