Newlon Housing Trust (202229430)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229430

Newlon Housing Trust

31 May 2024

 

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his request for a dedicated disabled parking bay.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began in August 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor adapted flat.
  2. The resident has been diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis which is a form of spinal arthritis.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident had been reporting the issue since September 2019. On 31 March 2021 the resident reported that a contractor had parked in the bay outside his property. The landlord responded and advised the resident that the bay is part of the landlord’s scheme and therefore its contractors are permitted to use the bay. On 12 July 2021, the resident requested for the landlord to allocate him a specific bay. The landlord stated that bays were not allocated, and new disabled parking permit holders would be unable to get parking bays as there were no spaces remaining.
  4. On 1 September 2022, the resident reported the same issues. He explained that due to a lack of visitor bays, contractors parked in resident bays which meant there was not enough permits for paying tenants. The resident informed the landlord about the impact the parking situation was having, as he often had to park further away from his property whilst still displaying his disabled parking permit. The landlord reiterated again on 27 September 2022 that bays were not allocated, however, if contractors were parking in the bays, they had been instructed to leave their contact details visible.
  5. The resident stated that he was informed during sign up that bays outside his property were allocated to ground floor flats and he was not informed that contractor permits effected the availability of parking. It was the availability of parking which made the property more desirable to the resident. The resident once again requested for specific bays to be allocated to tenants.
  6. Internal communications indicate that the landlord considered allocating bays to residents and to have contractors park in meter bays instead. However, in November 2022 it was decided that this would not go ahead due to concerns raised by various departments.
  7. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2022. The resident stated that his emails requesting assistance had been ignored and he had noticed that another tenant had a disabled badge installed on a parking bay. The resident questioned why he could not also be given an allocated bay with a disabled badge on it to prevent contractors from parking in it. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 November 2022.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 December 2022. The landlord stated that in response to the resident’s concerns it had informed its contractors that they were no longer permitted to park on the scheme. This would mean that there were enough bays for residents who held parking permits. The resident was advised to contact parking control if he noticed any contractors parked in the bays. In response to the resident’s request for an allocated disabled bay, the landlord explained that all the parking spaces were for residents in adapted properties, who all had mobility needs. The bay marked with a disabled sign which the resident had referred to had been installed prior to the parking policy at the time, and it did not mean the bay had been allocated to any one person specifically.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 7 December 2022. He stated that some tenants did not have disabilities and still parked in the bays. He also stated that he had never seen parking control patrol the area and there had been delays in them attending when the resident had previously reported parking issues. The resident requested for the landlord to conduct a resident survey to identify who would prefer to have allocated bays.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 9 December 2022. The resident continued to report incidents where contractors had parked in bays outside the resident’s property.
  11. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 13 January 2023. The landlord upheld its stage 1 response and stated that following investigation it could confirm that contractors were no longer permitted to park in the scheme and parking control had been notified of this. The landlord referred the resident’s request for a parking bay survey to its estates team to respond to within 10 working days. The resident was advised to continue reporting any parking breaches to parking control.
  12. Following the stage 2 response the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the ban on contractor parking had been revoked. This was due to contractors requiring access to complete any required works. The landlord reassured the resident that it would monitor parking closely and take appropriate action where contractors fail to display contact details.
  13. Following the stage 2 response the resident continued to report issues with parking to the landlord. An internal action plan was initiated by the landlord after the residents complaint had been escalated to the Ombudsman. Following this, the landlord inspected the parking bays and identified that the designation of a parking bay as being for disabled use had been installed by a resident without permission and would be removed. The landlord  considered carrying out a resident survey to identify whether all resident’s required a parking bay, and whether they were all disabled parking permit holders, however, there is no evidence to show this had been carried out.
  14. The resident referred his complaint to this service on 8 January 2024.The resident’s outstanding concerns are that the landlord had stated in its complaint responses that contractors were no longer permitted to park on the scheme, as a resolution to the resident’s complaint, however, this has since been revoked. The resident stated that he was informed there was enough bays for all tenants with mobility issues, however, contractor parking prevented access to a bay on some occasions. The resident also stated that the bay marked for disabled use still exists, and while he does not want it removed from the tenant that uses it, he would still like the landlord to assign him a bay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he considers that the parking issues have impacted his physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the parking at the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. The resident stated that the parking issues affecting his property have been ongoing since the start of the tenancy. The Ombudsman appreciates that this is a longstanding issue, however, it is unfair on both parties for the Ombudsman to consider events dating back 5 years. As a general principle the Ombudsman will consider events up to 12 months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord, this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which govern our service. The scope of this investigation does not therefore consider or reach a finding on any specific events prior to 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord in November 2022, however, does acknowledge the length of time the matters have been a source of concern for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an allocated disabled bay

  1. There is  no documentary evidence provided which record if and what was discussed between the parties at the start of the tenancy in relation to the provision of parking. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not set out the terms of the parking scheme. However, in relation to understanding the context for the resident’s current complaint, it is evident that the resident was informed in 2020 that adapted properties situated on the ground floor which included his, were granted use of the parking bays, but no specific bays would be assigned to individual tenants.
  2. The landlord’s parking policy and procedure states that where a property has been specifically designed for a disabled resident, parking may be automatically allocated, and this will be stated upon commencement of the tenancy. Disabled bays, unless specifically allocated to a particular flat, operate on a first come first served basis for those with a disabled parking permit.
  3. Where there are controlled parking schemes, the landlord’s staff will be issued with permits to allow them to park and it is the landlord’s responsibility to coordinate permits for staff. As contractors carry out services on behalf of the landlord it is reasonable for the same standard to apply to them in relation to parking permits.
  4. Under the Equality Act 2010 landlords are required to take positive steps to ensure disabled residents are able to access their services as easily as non-disabled residents. They should make adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning landlords cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access their services.
  5. This Service would expect the landlord to demonstrate it had given due consideration to the Act in response to the resident’s request for an allocated parking bay on the basis it could have been a reasonable adjustment for it to make to its existing policy and provide an allocated space. Furthermore, this Service would expect transparent communications in explaining its resultant decisions and to explain its rationale if it was not appropriate to make a reasonable adjustment in this instance. There is insufficient evidence in this case for the Ombudsman to consider whether there has been maladministration due to a lack of due regard by the landlord as to its duty under the Act. However, it is recommended that as part of its ongoing correspondence with the resident, that the landlord communicates with the resident how its obligations under the Act are demonstrated in its decision making.
  6. Following the resident’s repeated reports of issues with parking, the landlord reiterated its parking policy and explained that bays were not allocated to individual tenants. The landlord did take measures to alleviate the impact of its contractors using the parking bays by requesting for them to leave their contact details on their vehicles to enable residents to make contact with them if they required a parking bay.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord did circulate this request to its relevant teams to be passed down to contractors. Given the landlord had to balance the needs of the residents to park within the vicinity of their homes and the need to expediently conduct repairs and works within its properties, it was reasonable for the landlord to take this action in the circumstances. However, it is evident from the resident’s numerous reports that this request was not always being adhered to by contractors, and therefore inconveniencing the resident who did not always have access to a parking bay. This indicated that the landlord was not effectively managing the parking conditions it had put in place and it was unfair on the resident to have been informed of set conditions and for those conditions not to be managed. The resident repeatedly had to report the issues to the landlord and parking control, which took time and effort which could have been avoided if the landlord had managed parking more effectively.
  8. As the issues remained ongoing, the landlord did consider allocating parking bays and have contractors park outside the scheme, however, following internal discussions it was agreed that this could not be accommodated. The evidence shows the landlord decided not to prevent its contractors from parking in the scheme in November 2022, however, the resident was informed in both stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that contractors were no longer permitted to park in the affected areas. This was a failure and oversight by the landlord, as there were two missed opportunities for it to provide the resident with an accurate and factual update and explain its decision making. The landlord should not have informed the resident that contractors were no longer permitted to park on the scheme until it had confirmed the feasibility of its decision with its relevant internal teams. The resident was given inaccurate information which raised his expectations and caused further frustration and distress when the situation continued against the proposed resolution to his complaint that he had been informed of.
  9. In response to the resident’s reports about a disabled badge being installed on one of the bays, the landlord also incorrectly informed the resident the badge had been installed prior to the parking policies at the time. However, following further investigation the landlord identified the disabled sign had been installed by a resident without permission. Once the landlord became aware of the issue, it should have acted promptly to either remove the sign or consider the possibility of having additional disabled parking signs installed in order to demonstrate fairness to all residents. At the time the resident referred his complaint to this Service he stated that the bay marked with a disabled sign was still present, this was approximately a year after the resident’s stage 2 response. The delay in taking action in response to this is likely to have made the resident feel he was being treated unfairly by the landlord and contributing further to the breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship.
  10. The resident’s request for the landlord to conduct a resident survey to assess the needs of its tenants and the demand for allocated parking bays was reasonable. The landlord should have given due consideration to the resident’s request in light of the persistent complaints made, and that there appeared to be a number of other residents who were disabled within the scheme and a number of other residents who may have been being impacted by contractors’ use of the parking bays.
  11. The landlord could either plan to undertake the request, or provide a rationale to the resident which explains clearly why it would not undertake a survey and to provide clarity on its position to manage the landlord tenant relationship and to negate the need for further complaints.
  12. There has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents request for an allocated disabled parking bay. The landlord provided the resident with inaccurate information regarding a change in the parking policy on more than one occasion which raised the resident’s expectations. The landlord failed to consider alternative options when it was evident the issues remained ongoing despite contractors being asked to leave their contact details as a measure to manage access to parking for residents. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in recognition of the failures identified. It is recommended for the landlord to conduct a survey to identify the mobility needs of its residents who have parking permits for the scheme and whether there is a demand for allocated parking bays. Should the landlord undertake the survey it is recommended for it to share the findings with the resident and take action which it deems reasonable and proportionate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated disabled parking bay.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 for the failings identified in this report.
    3. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to make clear its position regarding its intention to conduct a resident survey.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended for the landlord to carry out a resident survey to identify the following:
    1. Mobility needs of each resident with a parking permit.
    2. Whether allocated bays are desirable.
    3. Whether all bays are in use by all residents with a permit.
  2. Should the landlord conduct a resident survey, it is recommended for the landlord to share the findings with the resident and propose a plan of action based on the findings.
  3. It is recommended that as part of any subsequent communications with the resident regarding the provision of dedicated disabled parking bays, that the landlord demonstrates how it has given due regard to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 as part of its decision making.