Notting Hill Genesis (202321218)

Background

1. The resident successfully bid on a property that was advertised with permit parking in July 2022. She made use of this by parking her car outside the property. The car was registered in her ex-husband’s name. The parking enforcement company began issuing tickets against the car and she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns about this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about parking

5. The landlord recognised it had failed to provide the resident with correct information in the advert, who she needed to contact and which bay she should park in. Its communication with her about the parking tickets was poor and prevented the potential for an early resolution of the matter.

Handling of the complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays with proportionate compensation but failed to address the resident’s concern about the latest parking fine.

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.

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 resident has informed us that the claims for unpaid PCNs were in her ex-husband’s name as he was the registered owner of the car. He does not have a landlord and tenant relationship with the landlord, so we cannot consider any of his potential financial losses. However, we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the matter to the resident.

What we have considered

8. The landlord’s parking policy states that where there is a shortage of spaces it allocates one bay for each eligible household. Permits are normally allocated on first-come first-served basis and then according to a priority list. An external parking control contractor manages the parking permits. Parking enforcement is managed either by an external parking control contractor or an external managing agent.
9. The tenancy agreement does not state that parking is available. However, the sign-up documents included a parking form which confirmed that the tenancy offered a parking space and it was located “out front of property”. The landlord does not dispute that it advertised the property with a parking space.
10. The evidence shows that the car began receiving PCNs on or around July 2023, approximately one year before she made her formal complaint. The landlord advised her to contact the management agent and the external parking control contractor. It accepted this was not the right information to give to the resident. It was responsible for allocating the spaces it owned and at this stage it should have made reasonable enquiries prior to giving her advice about the availability of permits. Its enquiries would have established that the 13 bays allocated to it had already been given to other residents. It was a missed opportunity for the landlord at any early stage to advise the resident of this position.
11. However, before the resident made her complaint, she raised enquiries on 7 occasions with the landlord. Each time she was expressing her worry about parking tickets. The landlord obtained a list of parking spaces which confirmed there were no spare spaces, so it investigated the availability of spaces in December 2023. It is not clear why it did not do this sooner. However, the resident continued to raise concerns about the PCNs received. There is a lack of evidence between July 2023 and March 2024, to show the landlord engaged with the resident in a meaningful way to resolve the issue of the fines. We would have reasonably expected the landlord to set out its position about the fines at the earliest opportunity and not when the matter escalated to court. Understandably, the resident remained concerned during this period that the fines were building up and felt that the landlord was not listening to her.
12. The resident called the landlord on 17 May 2024, following a county court claim addressed to her ex-husband, from the enforcement company about unpaid parking charges. She said she could not afford to pay it. It did ask the resident for her bank details in order to pay her the amount owed under the claim as a goodwill gesture. This was reasonable as the claim was not in the resident’s name. However, given the resident had raised concerns previously without any progression, the landlord’s response was delayed.
13. Even though the landlord offered to pay this charge, there is no evidence to show it appropriately discussed the issue with the resident.It was a missed opportunity for it to reassure her that it was taking her concerns seriously and was committed to finding a solution for her regarding the fines. This caused her to chase it on 22 May 2024. While it was positive that it wanted to pay the charge for her, the resident explained she had felt it was ignoring her and the matter was affecting her mental health.
14. The impact of landlord’s errors did not cause a direct financial loss to the resident. However, it is understandable that receiving court claims for unpaid PCNs in response to her parking would cause a significant amount of distress and worry to her. The resident said this also negatively impacted her relationship with her ex-husband. The landlord’s stage 2 offer of £1,600 compensation was made in recognition of some of its failures:
    1. Incorrect information in its advert.
    2. Incorrect advice about who to contact.
    3. Incorrectly allocating bay 2.
    4. Impact of the matter on her health and the upset caused.
15. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that its communication with the resident over the period had been poor. This resulted in the resident incurring time and trouble having to chase it for responses, causing further worry and distress over the course of approximately 8 months. For that reason, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress.However, we do not order it to pay any more compensation than it has already offered. The award is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had have adversely affected the resident. We are satisfied it is sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this investigation.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code.
17. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded at stage 1 in line with its policy and the Code. However, it:
    1. Did not acknowledge the escalation request in line with its policy or the Code.
    2. Took 59 working days to issue its stage 2 response which exceeded the 20 working day timescale to respond.
    3. Did not seek extensions to providing its stage 2 response in line with the Code, or evidence that the delay was unavoidable.
18. It is positive that it recognised it had delayed in providing its stage 2 response and offered £250 compensation to put things right. However, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress. The resident in her escalation request alerted the landlord to a new PCN for parking in bay 40 which it had recently allocated to her. It is unclear why the stage 2 response stated that no further fines had been issued. Indicating, either the landlord did not understand this or did not thoroughly investigate why parking in bay 40 was also causing issues. The Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this is unclear and unsupported based on what the resident raised at escalation.
19. We do not order it to pay any more compensation than it has already offered. The award is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we are satisfied the overall award is sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this investigation.

Learning

20. The landlord stated it has learned from its error in relation to its adverts, which is positive. It should review how it records and communicates parking allocation both internally and externally. It should ensure staff provide residents with clear and accurate information about parking.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records are lacking in places especially with communication. This suggests its staff are not accurately recording conversations with residents.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It missed an opportunity to review and discuss the parking tickets at an earlier stage. It should consider reviewing its approach and how it can make improvements to react in a more proactive way in the future.