Newlon Housing Trust (201910275)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910275

Newlon Housing Trust

18 March 2021

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 the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns regarding the parking at the property,
2. response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (asb) at the property,
3. complaint handling.

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 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asb at the property.
Paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
The resident’s formal complaint, which was logged by the landlord on 4 November 2019 and exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 29 May 2020, did not include a complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of asb and this was not considered by the landlord as part of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asb is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a one bedroom second floor flat in a block of 20 flats.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees to take reasonable care to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident and other occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises.
The landlord’s repairs policy and procedure lists broken or damaged gates as an example of a non emergency communal repair for which the landlord is responsible.
The landlord has a three stage complaints process, stage zero, stage one and stage two. If a resident is unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint then the resident can appeal to the next stage of the complaints process, which is a panel review. Stage one responses will be sent to the resident within 10 working days. The target for reviewing Stage 2 complaints is 30 days, the panel meeting should be held within 30 days of the appeal with the documentation being sent out 10 working days in advance of the meeting.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that a payment of £25 compensation can be paid where there has been a failure of service: i.e. failure to reply to letters, return calls, losing important documents, repeated broken appointments, poor communication, failure to meet published timescales etc.
There are fewer parking spaces at the block than the number of flats and on 18 December 2018 the landlord introduced parking permits and appointed parking enforcement company A (‘Company A’) to manage the enforcement. The landlord informed residents in November 2018 that parking permits would cost £30 per year and residents would only be allowed one permit per property. In order to obtain a permit a resident needed to provide a completed Company A application form and copies of the following documentation: the vehicle V5/ log book showing the vehicle was registered to the property address, the MOT certificate and insurance documents showing the vehicle registered to the property address.
The resident subsequently purchased a parking permit from Company A.
In September 2019, the landlord wrote to all the residents of the block informing them that from 4 October 2019 it was appointing parking enforcement company B to manage parking going forward, instead of Company A. The landlord also advised the residents that from 4 October 2019 parking permits would be issued one for each household and would be free of charge.
The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 13 September 2019 to express his concern about the forthcoming changes to the parking at the block. He said he felt he had wasted money in buying a parking permit from company A. He was unhappy that all residents, regardless of whether they had a vehicle or not, would now be entitled to parking permits.
The resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord on 14 September 2019, complaining about the changes in parking arrangements and the lack of consultation with residents about the changes. The landlord did not register this as a complaint.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 19 September 2019 saying that parking at the block was on a first come first serve basis and that it had written to all residents advising them of the changes and when they were due to take place. The landlord also asked the resident to provide evidence of when he had renewed his parking permit.
The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 21 September 2019. He said that the only consultation about the changes was a letter that he said had been hand delivered on 6 September 2019 and signs about the changes in parking had been erected the same day. He repeated that the changes were unfair to him. The resident sent the landlord further emails on 2 October 2019 and 10 October 2019 raising concerns about overcrowding for the parking at the block and that the landlord had removed the gate to the block, allowing non residents to come in and park.
On 8 October 2019 the landlord sent the resident an email explaining that everyone at the address was entitled to parking as it was on a first come first serve basis. The landlord said that it would monitor the parking and should any problems arise in the future, it would review this decision and take the appropriate action.
On 21,24 and 29 October 2019 the resident sent emails to the landlord saying that he was unhappy with its responses to his concerns about the parking and wanted to make a formal complaint. The landlord logged a formal complaint on 4 November 2019.
On 19 November 2019 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord repeated its previous responses to the resident’s concerns by saying that all the residents in the block were entitled to parking in the same way that he was, on a first come first serve basis. The landlord repeated that Company B would closely monitor the situation, and should any further problems arise in the future, it would be reviewed, and the appropriate action taken. The landlord also said that ample notice was provided prior to the enforcement taking place and it asked the resident to provide evidence of his permit renewal purchase so it could provide him with any reimbursement he might be due.
On 30 November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord saying that he was unhappy with its stage one complaint response, specifically:
1. the lock on the car park gate had previously been removed and not replaced by the landlord,
2. that residents weren’t consulted about the changes to the parking in October 2019,
3. he had paid Company A for his parking permit having provided the necessary documents showing that he owned a vehicle registered to the property address,
4. that it was a mistake for the landlord to decide to issue parking permits to all residents, regardless of whether they were vehicle owners or drivers,
5. he was concerned that non residents were now using the parking and ‘residents have been harassed by people who do not live in this property and we have been violated in our own parking space.’
6. residents didn’t have a point of contact at the landlord to raise their concerns.
On 9 December 2019 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had moved the complaint to the appeal stage and would look over the file later that week and write to him.
On 7 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident concerning his complaint appeal. The landlord addressed the issues raised by the resident and said:
1. the carpark gate had previously had a lock on it which was continually removed by unknown persons after the landlord replaced it a number of times. The landlord had decided not to keep replacing the lock, as it was costly, and instead implement parking enforcement,
2. the new system of one permit per household was the arrangement it had at most of its housing schemes and its estates team had reported that the carpark did not seem to be oversubscribed and allowed for the one permit per household rule,
3. all residents had been informed of the new company and how the system would work, and the landlord did not receive any queries at the time. It was sorry that the resident did not feel that the level of communication and consultation was sufficient, but it had given a month’s notice of the changes, as it would normally do,
4. all permits were free, and the residents did not pay for any additional costs such as signage which Company A would have charged for. Residents would only pay a small fee for line marking if this was applicable to the site or if they lost or damaged their current permit. Residents would also not need to renew permits so there would be no fee for that either,
5. its estates team were not aware of any other residents complaining of parking issues, or of anyone else reporting that non-residents were parking in the carpark. If the resident had information as to which resident had allowed their permit to be used by non-residents it would look into it with the potential of removing their permit. If non-residents were parking without permits then company B would issue them with parking tickets,
6. that it was sorry that the resident did not feel that the level of communication and consultation was sufficient. The landlord said that it would normally give one month’s notice of changes, which had been done in this case,
7. since 2015 all issues are initially reported to its service centre, providing one point of contact for residents. The landlord was sorry that the resident felt that this was not appropriate, however it felt that this offered a more consistent service and with the use of its customer management system ensured that record keeping on issues reported by residents was much better.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident informing him that his complaint would be considered by a complaints panel meeting virtually, due to the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions.
On 1 May 2020 the landlord emailed the resident with the papers to be considered at the complaints panel meeting to be held on 7 May 2020.
Following the complaint panel meeting on 7 May 2020 the landlord sent the resident the panel outcome letter on 29 May 2020. In its letter the complaints panel said that:
1. the resident had submitted an online complaint form on 14 September 2019; however this was not recorded as a complaint by the landlord. The panel felt this was a service failure and had mentioned it to the landlord’s service resolution team who manged online complaint receipts as a learning point,
2. as the resident had paid money for his parking permit to Company A the panel was not in a position to refund him for the permit directly for the balance of the permit period unused. However, it had taken his concerns about this into account in reviewing the appeal,
3. the panel agreed that the resident’s view that the previous system was fairer, because it limited permits to residents who could provide proof of vehicle ownership etc, was reasonable. However, it said that the landlord advised that the new system was also fair but in a different way: it was simpler to manage, residents benefitted as it was free and there was no need to renew permits and provide copies of documentation. The landlord would be monitoring the situation so if the resident had any day to day concerns, he should contact the landlord’s estates team. If non residents were parking in the car park the resident should report this to company B whose role it was to enforce the parking. The resident should report, with as much detail as possible, to the landlord any occasions where he experiences threatening or hostile behaviour in the car park and the landlord would investigate,
4. the panel agreed that consultation with residents was often useful and could help avoid the feelings of concern that the resident had. The landlord had advised the panel that it had not consulted residents on the parking changes as “the contract with [company A] had expired and [the landlord] was looking at new parking contractors. [Company B] were trialled at other sites without complaints, we therefore instructed them to take over parking enforcement for all [the landlord’s] sites.” The panel felt this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to have taken but the resident’s opinions had been passed to the landlord’s estates team to note in the future,
5. the gates to the car park no longer had a lock which the landlord removed because it was frequently vandalised. The panel confirmed that the landlord had taken the view that “it was not justified to keep replacing a security lock in these circumstances” and this was one of the reasons why it had introduced the parking permits and parking enforcement,
6. the resident’s emails dated 24 and 29 October 2019 should have been logged as complaints. However, the landlord did not log a complaint until 4 November 2019. The panel also noted that there had been a four month delay in arranging for the resident’s appeal to be reviewed. The panel awarded the resident £75 compensation for the landlord’s handling of his complaint. This money was to be paid into the resident’s rent account as there were arrears on the account,
7. that the panel appreciated that the resident remained unhappy with the parking scheme, but it believed that the landlord’s approach over the management of the parking had “been reasonably discharged.”
The complaint panel’s letter dated 29 May 2020 was the landlord’s final response to the complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the parking at the property

Whilst the resident wanted permits limited to those who owned vehicles there was no evidence to show that allowing all residents to have a permit would make parking more difficult for him. The landlord had instructed company B to enforce the new arrangements and ensure that non residents did not park in the car park. The new arrangements for parking permits were free and required no renewing or provision of documents. Therefore, the landlord’s response that the new arrangements were fair was a reasonable one as there is no evidence that they disadvantaged the resident and the arrangements would save the resident money.
In its stage one response to the resident’s complaint the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of his permit renewal purchase so it could provide him with any reimbursement he might be due (see paragraph 20). However, in the final response to the complaint the landlord said that it was not in a position to refund him as he had paid company A for the permit. Company A issued the permit acting as the landlord’s contractor and so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the resident any money he had paid to park for the period when the parking was free. The landlord acted unreasonably in informing the resident at stage one that it would refund him for the unexpired portion of his permit and then informing him at stage two that it would not do so.
Under the terms of tenancy agreement, and its repairs policy and procedure, the landlord was responsible for keeping the gate to the car park in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident and other occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises. However, having repaired the lock on the gate a number of times the landlord decided not to repair it again but to remove the lock and introduce parking enforcement. The landlord had no control over the cause of the damage to the gate lock (which appears to have been vandalism). However, having identified that vandalism was an issue with the damage to the gate lock, and that this was a continuing problem requiring costly repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider preventative action, such as introducing parking enforcement to deter non residents from entering the car park.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In the final response to the complaint, the complaint panel said that there had been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, specifically:
1. it had not lodged a formal complaint when the resident had submitted an online complaint form on 14 September 2019,
2. it had not logged the resident’s emails of 24 and 29 October as a formal complaint (see paragraph 19) until 4 November 2019
3. the complaint responses had been delayed
4. there had been a four month delay in reviewing the complaint.
The delay in logging the stage one complaint set out in the resident’s email dated 24 and 29 October 2019 meant that the landlord issued its stage one complaint response 20 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint, ten working days later than the response timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy (see paragraph 9).
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process on 30 November 2019. The complaint panel meeting was held on 7 May 2020, 159 days after the resident asked to escalate his complaint and 129 days after the 30 day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy for holding complaint panel meetings. There was a further delay of 22 days before the results of the complaint panel meeting were sent to the resident.
The landlord paid the resident £75 compensation for its complaint handling failures. As set out in paragraph 10 the landlord’s compensation policy sets out a payment of £25 for instances where there has been a failure of service: i.e.failure to reply to letters, return calls, losing important documents, repeated broken appointments, poor communication, failure to meet published timescales. However, the delays in handling the complaint were significant and the landlord demonstrated a resolution focused approach in offering to pay compensation greater than that set out in its compensation policy.
The figure of £75 is at the lower end of the £50 to £250 range of remedies set out by the Ombudsman in its guidance on remedies for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a resident which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As set out in paragraphs 33 to 35 above the complaints handling delays were significant throughout and therefore the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact that the landlord’s failures in complaints handling had on the resident. The £75 compensation did not put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result in the landlord’s significant delay in handling the complaint. The Ombudsman would expect he compensation to have been in the middle of the £50 to £250 range of remedies set out in its guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the parking at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted unreasonably in informing the resident in its stage one complaint response that it would refund him for the unexpired portion of his permit and then informing him at stage two that it would not do so.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in handling the complaint but did not pay compensation that was proportionate to the impact that its failings had on the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to:
1. contact the resident to arrange a refund of the unexpired portion of his parking permit,
2. pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of its complaint handling failures. This is addition to the £75 compensation that the landlord has already paid the resident.