Network Homes Limited (202103037)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103037

Network Homes Limited

3 February 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 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the dual allocation of a car parking space.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage that was caused to his car.
3. The landlord’s conclusion that it was not liable for the damage caused to the resident’s car.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the landlord’s conclusion that it was not liable for the damage caused to the resident’s car falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek to remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
When the resident complained to the landlord, he said that the landlord was ultimately responsible for the damage that had been caused to his car as the dual allocation was its error, and it was responsible for surveillance within the car park. In response, the landlord advised that vehicles were parked at the owners’ own risk. On that basis, it was unable to agree that it was responsible for the damage that had been caused, and declined the resident’s request for compensation.
The issue of whether the landlord is liable for the damage that was caused to the resident’s car is a matter that falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has complied with its duties and obligations in relation to housing-related matters. This involves reviewing the occupancy agreement for a property to establish what the landlord’s duties and obligations are. The resident’s lease agreement does not confer any responsibility on the landlord in respect of any vehicle that may be stationed within the car parking space. As such, the resident may wish to seek legal advice, or to make enquiries through his insurer, if he believes that the landlord is responsible for the damage that was caused to his car.
While the Ombudsman cannot make a decision in relation to liability or negligence, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns surrounding the damage to his car, and his request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident acquired the lease to the property in July 2020. At the same time, the lease was varied to include a designated car parking space within a communal cark park.
Soon after moving into the property, the resident was out of the country for several weeks, during which time he had left his car in the parking bay that had been allocated to him. However, on his return, the resident came to learn that his allocated bay had already been allocated to another resident. In addition, there were a number of scratches to the car.
The resident contacted the landlord at the beginning of September 2020 to raise the issue of the dual allocation, and to see what could be done to rectify the problem. On 16 September, the landlord advised that checks were being carried out, and that the resident would be updated accordingly.
The resident subsequently sought an update towards the end of September prior to making a formal complaint on 30 September. Within his correspondence the resident said:
1. He had purchased the leasehold title to the property – and this included parking bay 5. However, it had since transpired that the bay had already been allocated to another resident.
2. A month had passed since he first raised the issue, and he had not received a meaningful update. While he understood that there was a wider issue with dual allocation, which required solicitor involvement to rectify, nothing was being done in the meantime to move matters forward.
3. After moving into the property, he was out of the country and had left his car parked in the allocated bay. On his return, he found that the car had been scratched, and that it had been done in a malicious way. The resident said that he had filed a report with the police; however, the case was closed as he was unable to narrow down the window during which the damage may have occurred.
4. The repairs to his car were estimated to cost around £1,000. Given that the landlord was responsible for the dual allocation and parking surveillance, he wished to be compensated for the damage which had been sustained.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day, and advised that it would aim to respond within 10 working days. A complaint response was subsequently issues on 14 October. Within this, the landlord said:
1. From an initial review, it did seem that there had been “some duplications” on the allocation of parking spaces that were sold.
2. It had asked its solicitors to go through all the leases in the development to check for any more duplication. Once it had completed its investigation, it would write to all residents involved and prepare amendments to the leases. It would also advise on the parking bay that would be allocated to the properties.
3. It had been advised that the CCTV in the car park was at various locations. This could be provided to the resident if he was able to provide a date and time.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said:
1. While he understood that mistakes could happen, and that the solicitors were working to resolve the problem, it was not acceptable that there was no temporary solution and that he had been without a set space since 30 August, when he returned to the country.
2. In his opinion, a simple spreadsheet could clarify which bays had been allocated already. Once this had been established, residents could agree on the new spaces so that they could be used while the paperwork was being corrected.
3. As he had previously mentioned, the 24-hour period during which his car was damaged could not be established. However, he believed the cause of the incident was the dual allocation – which was the landlord’s error. He therefore expected the landlord to resolve the matter; and if not, to compensate him for the damage.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 4 November. It said:
1. The dual allocation was an ongoing issue and had been discussed with senior staff. It had been agreed that:
  1. All residents would need to be consulted before it could take decisive action – which it considered would take a substantial time. This was on the basis that it would need to establish previous owners and possibly get the developer involved in reissuing or reallocation if necessary. This was likely to require involvement from the legal teams.
  2. While it understood the resident’s concerns, it would need to follow due diligence to establish who owns what and if there were any free bays. If there were free bays following the review, then the resident would have to be on the waiting list. As such, it could not guarantee that the resident would have a parking space.
  3. There were some empty bays which were not currently in use; however, it could not allocate them as they were “officially allocated”.
  4. It had written to residents to explain the above, and had offered to reimburse residents if they were paying to park elsewhere.
  5. It understood that this was not the response the resident would have hoped for; however the matter was “highly complex” and needed considerable investigation before any resolutions could be put in place.
2. It would not compensate residents for damage to their vehicles, which had been parked at the owners own risk. It was therefore unable to agree the resident’s request for compensation to assist in completing the repairs to his car.
3. It could not assist the resident further in relation to the car damage unless he was able to provide a window in which it could search CCTV in an attempt to locate the footage he required. While the resident could not determine a 24-hour window, it asked that he consider whether he could narrow down the timeframe to 48 or 72 hours. It would then see if it was able to assist in tracking down the footage.

Events after the final response

In January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update regarding the dual allocation of bays. The resident advised that he had been away; but it had been several months since he had received an update. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident continued and on 2 February, the landlord confirmed that the resident had been allocated bay 6 in the car park. The landlord also confirmed that it would be taking care of the paperwork, ensuring that it reflected the change, and that the resident would not have to pay towards it.
The resident thanked the landlord for the update and asked if it could confirm when the paperwork was likely to be completed. The landlord advised that it was unable to confirm a date. The resident’s neighbour was also copied into the email chain, and she advised that she had seen bay 6 being used by another resident and therefore wanted to point out that there could still be an issue with two residents trying to use the same bay.
In response, the landlord advised that until all the parking allocation had been sorted, and the neighbourhood team had introduced parking control, there could still be problems with “some unauthorised vehicles parking in residents’ bays”.
The resident subsequently returned to the country and identified that his newly allocated bay was in fact a disabled bay. He therefore queried whether it was the correct bay, and what would happen if someone identified that he had parked in the bay without a disabled badge on display. The resident advised that he was concerned about his car being vandalised given the scratches that were made the previous year. In addition, he asked what would happen if in the future a resident required a disabled bay.
The landlord responded to the resident on 15 March to advise that there were no restrictions on him using the bay. The bay was free when the review was carried out, and he was the last resident to be allocated a bay. The landlord added that permits would be allocated shortly, and these would include the bay number. It said that this should avoid any future problems.
However, approximately a fortnight later, the resident informed the landlord that another resident had been parked in bay 6 – and they were disabled, with a badge. The resident said that the individual had informed him that she had been allocated the bay. The resident said that this was what he had been concerned about and that the landlord needed to provide transparency in the form of a plan setting out who the allocated space holders were.
Further communication was exchanged, and it transpired that the other resident who had been using bay 6 was a tenant of the landlord’s. The landlord advised that the Neighbourhood team should have informed the tenant that she needed to park in the bay that had been assigned to her property. The resident informed the landlord that while it was good to learn that the other resident should not have been parked there, he did not wish to leave her without a bay – or for her to have difficulty moving between her car and flat. On that basis, he had informed her that she could continue to use bay 6 until the issue was fully resolved.
In return, the landlord informed the resident that bay 6 was for him to use, and that the tenant would need the Neighbourhood team to confirm an alternative bay. There was subsequently discussion about the resident and the tenant potentially swapping bays; however, the landlord advised that bay 6 would remain the allocated bay. The resident added that whatever the outcome was, if the bay had been marked as for disabled use, it was imperative that the signage was removed to avoid confusion, and so that he was not perceived as using a disabled bay inappropriately.
Conversation continued and the landlord informed the resident that it was not necessary to have the markings removed. The resident disagreed and said that he was not willing to risk another incident in the future. In addition, the resident asked for an update in relation to the contracts adding that it had been several months with no further developments. The landlord advised that it could not change the description of the bays as it was part of the planning agreement. However, it was able to allocate the disabled bays to non-disabled parties – which it had done. The resident continued to explain why it was necessary for him that the markings were removed – and he also chased an update on the contracts as no confirmation had been provided
In May 2021, the resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the lack of progress. In June 2021, the landlord confirmed with the resident that after discussion with the developer, it would remove the disabled marking. The landlord also reiterated that bay 6 belonged to the resident and was for him to use; however, no update was provided in relation to the contracts. By October 2021, the correspondence shows that the disabled marking was yet to be removed. It is not clear if the necessary amendments to the resident’s paperwork have been made or if these remain outstanding.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Parking Policy states at paragraph 36: “Network Homes cannot accept liability for any loss or damage to any vehicle parked in a designated parking area arising from the acts of third parties e.g. vandalism, theft or accidental damage”.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the dual allocation

As detailed above, at the beginning of September 2020, the resident notified the landlord that there was potentially an issue with the allocation of bays within the car park – and that his bay did appear to have been allocated to two properties. In response, the landlord appropriately advised that it would have to look into the matter further to establish what had transpired, and which bays – if any – remained free for allocation.
The resident was dissatisfied with a lack of response or explanation as to what action the landlord was taking to resolve the problem and therefore raised a formal complaint approximately a month after he first reported the issue. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it appropriately informed the resident of the actions that it was taking. However, it advised that as the issue was complex, finding a solution likely to take a “substantial” time.
It is noted that the task of identifying which bays had been allocated – and to which properties – and which remained free was likely to take some time. It is also acknowledged that correcting the dual allocation and paperwork would involve the landlord’s solicitors taking action too, and that the associated timescales were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide a rough timescale or a target completion time to manage the resident’s expectations. If the landlord felt unable to do so, it could reasonably have agreed to provide regular updates instead. This would have helped to provide the resident with reassurance that it was dealing with the matter proactively. In addition, it could have helped to mitigate some of the inconvenience was caused to the resident as a result of having to chase updates for a number of months. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in its handling of the matter.
Within correspondence to the affected residents, the landlord did advise that if residents had incurred costs when parking elsewhere, it would reimburse them upon the provision of receipts. This was reasonable in the circumstances; however, the evidence does not show that the landlord considered any further interim solutions – or provided the resident with any advice about where he could park his car – while the dual allocations were being investigated. If it were the case that the landlord did not consider that there was a feasible interim measure, it would have been reasonable to explain this to the resident during the course of the complaint – especially given that the landlord was aware that resolving the issue was likely to take a considerable time.
In February 2021, three months after the landlord issued its final response, it confirmed that following its review, bay 6 had been allocated to the resident. However, as detailed above, the resident subsequently informed the landlord that the bay had disabled signage, and had already been allocated to a disabled resident. The landlord promptly clarified that the other resident was a tenant – and as such, the Neighbourhood team was responsible for confirming with her what bay should be used. However, it confirmed that bay 6 was the bay which the resident had been allocated.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s comments, but advised that he was happy to swap bays with the tenant in the circumstances – so long as his paperwork reflect the change. In addition, the resident advised that if bay 6 were to remain his, the disabled signage would need to be removed so that he was not perceived as using the bay inappropriately.
The resident’s reasons for not wishing to use bay 6 while the tenant was waiting to be allocated a bay are acknowledged. It is noted that the landlord did promptly confirm with the resident that bay 6 had been assigned to his property, and that a different team was responsible for confirming which bay the tenant should be using. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that as it had failed to streamline the changes across its leasehold residents and tenants, there was still an issue of dual allocation. In addition, as the Neighbourhood team had not updated its tenants with any changes, and the resident’s paperwork had not yet been updated to reflect the change, the landlord had asked the resident to use a disabled bay that had already been allocated to a disabled resident.
As the resident was unable to use his newly allocated bay, he had to park elsewhere while the necessary steps were taken to allocate the tenant a new bay. In addition, the evidence shows that the landlord was not proactive in trying to resolve the matter and it was the resident who continually sought updates to ensure that the matter was resolved. This was a further failing by the landlord, and the cause of further inconvenience to the resident.
The resident’s reasons for requesting that the signage be removed are understood, and were not unreasonable in the circumstances. After initially declining to remove it, the landlord did subsequently agree to do so after discussions with the developer. There was no obligation on the landlord under the lease agreement or Parking Policy to take such action. However, it was reasonable – and important – for it to do so given the risk of the resident potentially receiving a penalty charge notice for failing to display a disabled badge – as per the policy. As detailed above, it is not clear if steps have been taken to remove the signage. The landlord first agreed to do so in June 2021, and this remained outstanding four months later. If the signage is yet to be removed, the landlord should ensure that this is completed without further delay.

Landlord’s response to the request for compensation.

In response to the resident’s request for compensation, the landlord advised that it would not be paying any compensation as owners parked their vehicles at their own risk. The landlord added that it could assist the resident in retrieving CCTV footage if he were able to narrow down the window during which the damage was believed to have occurred. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord; although it is noted that the resident was unable to do so given the period of time that he had been away from the property.
The resident’s reasons for seeking compensation are acknowledged – it is also noted that it would have been disappointing to return to his new property to find that his car had been damaged in such a manner. However, the landlord had appropriately relied on its policy in this case when advising that it would not be paying any compensation. In the circumstances, it may have been helpful for the landlord to explicitly refer to the Parking Policy – or to quote it within the complaint correspondence. However, that it did not do so was a shortcoming in the complaint handling as opposed to a failing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the allocation of a car parking space.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to his car.

Reasons

In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately took action to ensure that the situation with the dual allocation within the car park was rectified. The landlord also agreed to ensure that the paperwork was correctly amended. However, the evidence demonstrates that there was a failure to proactively update the resident in relation to both the allocation of a new car parking space and the completion of the paperwork; and a failure to provide any guidance about what the resident could do in the interim while its investigation was underway. As a result, the resident had to seek updates to ascertain what was happening and was inconvenienced as a result. Furthermore, it is not clear if the paperwork has been finalised despite the issue being raised by the resident approximately 17 months ago.
After the resident had been allocated a new bay, it transpired that this was a disabled bay, which had already been allocated to a disabled resident. As the landlord had failed to streamline the changes with its Neighbourhood team, the resident was unable to use his allocated bay and was further inconvenienced. In addition, the evidence does not show that the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the matter or keeping the resident updated. While the landlord subsequently agreed to remove the disabled signage from the resident’s bay, this was yet to take place four months after it agreed to do so. In addition, it is not clear if the signage has now been removed.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation was in line with its Parking Policy. However, it may have been helpful to quote the policy within the complaint correspondence, or to provide the resident with a copy in the circumstances.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £400 for the inconvenience caused as a result of the failings identified.
If the resident’s paperwork has yet to be finalised, the landlord should provide him with a timescale for completion within four weeks of the date of this decision. If the landlord cannot provide a timescale for completion, it should agree to update the resident every four weeks until the matter is finalised.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should confirm with the resident and the Ombudsman when the disabled signage will be removed, if this has not taken place.