North Devon Homes (202432929)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, in a block of flats, which the landlord provides some unallocated parking spaces for. He has limited mobility and is unhappy that a disabled parking bay has not been allocated for his sole use.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated disabled parking space.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for a designated disabled parking space
   2. the complaint

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a designated disabled parking space

5. The landlord acted reasonably to balance the needs of its residents when considering the approval of a new disabled parking space. It was clear in its communication that it could not designate a space for the resident’s sole use, as there were other residents with blue badges in the complex. It was made clear to the resident before the space was built that it would not be for his sole use.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy at both stages.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. The local authority was involved in the funding and construction of the disabled parking bay. The local authority, and its actions in relation to a DFG do not come under our remit. So, we have not considered any of its actions. If the resident is unhappy with the actions of the local authority, or any advice it gave him in relation to who would be able to use the parking space, he would need to raise this with it directly.

The resident’s request for a designated disabled parking space

8. The resident raised concerns to the landlord in April 2022 about parking tickets he had received for parking outside a marked bay. He told it he was unable to get out of his vehicle if he parked within the lines of a non-disabled bay. The landlord responded to say it would investigate whether it could provide disabled parking but said it would not be for his sole use.
9. In October 2022 the resident involved the local authority, who contacted the landlord about a proposal for a new parking space. It said that the space would be an additional space for the resident’s sole use. The landlord told the local authority that it could proceed, but that the space would not be solely for the resident’s use.
10. On 13 January 2023 the local authority contacted the resident to ask if he needed help in processing the application for the DFG. He responded to say that he’d been given the impression that the parking space would be open to all blue badge holders, and that there were at least 3 others living in the complex. The local authority confirmed the landlord had only granted permission on the basis that all disabled residents could use the space.
11. The resident initially said, on 16 January 2023, that he was concerned about this. However, after the local authority again said it could not change this decision, the resident agreed to go ahead with the DFG, including for the parking space. While we appreciate that the situation was not exactly what the resident was looking for, we are satisfied he was aware of the conditions the landlord had insisted on and had agreed to move forward on this basis.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 August 2024, as he was unhappy with parking issues. He said that he believed the space was funded under the DFG for his sole use and allowing the space to be communal went against the DFG criteria. As explained above, the DFG process is done by the local authority, so we cannot comment on whether the local authority acted correctly in proceeding with the DFG with that condition attached. However, we have seen that the resident was aware of the condition before agreeing to proceed.
13. The landlord responded on 14 August 2024, explaining that it made it clear from the outset that the space would be for any blue badge holder. It directed the resident to the local authority if he had any concerns about the DFG, which was a reasonable response. He responded the same day to ask the landlord to raise a formal complaint.
14. In its stage 1 response of 4 September 2024 the landlord reiterated that its records showed it had discussed the conditions of the parking space with the resident before he proceed with the DFG. The resident remained unhappy with this response and the following day asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He said he felt the local authority was not clear about the DFG process and he did not fully understand what he was committing to.
15. In its stage 2 response of 1 October 2024, the landlord explained that the resident would need to speak to the local authority if he felt its staff had been unclear, which was a reasonable response. It said it did recognise that there is limited parking at the complex. It said it had decided that as there was a public car park nearby, the parking onsite should be for resident’s use only. It told him it would write to all residents to advise that from 1 November 2024, no visitors could park on site. It also said it would conduct a consultation within the next 12 months to obtain residents’ views on parking provision. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
16. The landlord kept clear records of its communications with the resident and the local authority in relation to the issue investigated. It communicated clearly and appropriately with the resident throughout the period investigated.
17. The landlord wrote to all residents on 3 October 2024 saying that it would be withdrawing visitor parking from 1 November 2024. We have not seen evidence of the landlord completing the consultation on parking. However, the resident brought the complaint to us with the 12-month period, so we appreciate it may have completed this. We have made a recommendation for it to do this, if it has not already done so.
18. We appreciate the resident feels the space should be for his use only, but the landlord does have to balance the needs of all residents. This is especially difficult where there are significantly more properties than parking spaces in a complex, which is the case here. The landlord worked with the local authority to put forward a proposal to build an additional parking space. The landlord and the local authority communicated the conditions of this to the resident before he agreed to go ahead with the DFG. So, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
19. When we spoke to the resident during our investigation, he told us that disabled visitors were still using the disabled parking space. He told us the signage suggested that any blue badge holders, who lived in any properties owned by the landlord and not just this complex, were entitled to park there.
20. As the resident did not raise this as part of the original complaint, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to look into this, we have not investigated this. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider the signage for the disabled bay and update it if necessary to make it clear that the disabled space is for residents of the complex only.

21. As can be seen from above: 
    1. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 4 working days (14 August to 20 August 2024) and sent its stage 1 response within 7 working days of its acknowledgment (20 August to 4 September 2024) – in line with its complaints policy
    2. the landlord sent its stage 2 response within 18 working days of the resident’s escalation request (5 September to 1 October 2024) – in line with its complaints policy

Learning

22. The landlord does not currently have a policy in relation to parking. It has told us it is currently reviewing its ‘upkeep of common parts and communal areas policy’ with the intention of adding a section about parking. This is a positive step for the landlord to take to ensure more clarity around parking entitlement for its residents.