Optivo (202114279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114279

Optivo

20 January 2023


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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an allocated parking space.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord since March 2015 and lives in a one-bedroom flat which was part of a new build scheme. The resident’s tenancy agreement gives no provisions for an allocated parking bay.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident has poor mobility.
  3. On 7 July 2015, the resident emailed his landlord stating that whilst he was happy to accept the offer of the flat, he was registered disabled and had complex spinal surgery which meant it was hard for him to walk and do other tasks. He was concerned that he had not been allocated a parking space and said that, as the flats were advertised with parking facilities under the building, the landlord should honour this.
  4. The landlord responded on the same and following day, advising the resident that there was limited parking available due to the local authority choosing to build more housing units over parking spaces due to the national housing shortage. It confirmed that it did not have any parking spaces available as it allocated the parking spaces for its rental units when it let the properties. It said that if the resident was registered disabled he could contact the local authority to see if they could help him.
  5. This Service does not have any correspondence between the resident and landlord from July 2015 until June 2018.
  6. On 14 June 2018, the resident wrote to his landlord and said:
    1. He had written to the landlord on three separate occasions, but had not received a satisfactory response as the landlord’s answers did not address his questions nor needs for a parking space.
    2. The advertisement for the property stated that there was parking available for residents. It was one of the main reasons why he accepted the offer of the property and, as he was registered disabled at the time of the viewing, he should have been allocated a parking space.
    3. Some residents have been allocated parking spaces when they did not have cars and he was told that the landlord had allocated 15 parking spaces to its contractors. Therefore the allocation of car parking spaces had been unfair and discriminatory.
    4. As his disability had become worse since he moved in to his home, his landlord should take this into account and allocate him a parking space. He also asked for the landlord to confirm that his name was on a waiting list for parking. 
  7. This Service does not have any correspondence between the resident and landlord from 14 June 2018 until 23 April 2019.
  8. On 23 April 2019, the landlord apologised by letter to the resident for not responding to his letters sooner and advised that the staff member who was allocated his case had left the organisation. It went on to say:
    1. During the viewing and sign-up the resident was told that there was no parking available and in July 2015 it confirmed that there was no parking available for further allocation.
    2. There were 14 parking bays for social housing residents, and of those 14 bays, six were allocated for the wheelchair accessible units and the other eight had already been allocated to other residents.
    3. The resident was nominated via the local authority for a general needs property and not a wheelchair accessible unit. Therefore, he was not allocated a parking bay, as the parking bays were allocated for the wheelchair units and the larger two and three-bed properties on the estate. 
    4. It had many residents on the estate that were also registered disabled and it was unable to provide them with a parking space as well. It confirmed, unless a space became available, it would be unable to re-allocate a parking space.
  9. On 31 May 2019, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident. This Service does not have a copy of the resident’s complaint which triggered this response. The landlord reiterated what it had said in its April 2019 letter, adding:
    1. The local authority was responsible for the allocation of his home, his disability was discussed at the viewing and if the resident felt the property was not suitable for his needs he was given the option to refuse the property at the time.  
    2. that a household member did not need to have a wheelchair, but did need to have a disability to be allocated a wheelchair accessible property.  The remainder of the flats were not wheelchair accessible, however they were large enough to turn into wheelchair accessible units if needed in the future.
    3. As it was a new build estate, all parking was allocated before the building was handed to the landlord.
  10. This Service has not received correspondence between the landlord and the resident between June 2019 to June 2020.
  11. On 3 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that it had received an email from him regarding parking. This Service does not have a copy of the resident’s email. The landlord stated that a formal response had been sent to the resident on 31 May 2019 and, as it did not receive a request from the resident to escalate his complaint, the complaint was closed. It also advised that as the recent complaint related to the same issue, the resident would need to seek independent advice.
  12. On 17 October 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, stating that he had complained before but had not received a satisfactory answer to his complaint and reiterated his concerns from his previous complaints about being overlooked for a parking bay. He also requested to be given a bay which he identified was unallocated. 
  13. The landlord apologised to the resident that he remained unhappy with its response and advised that there was no parking. It confirmed that the specific parking bay the resident wanted was for its staff and its contractors. It was unable to accept another complaint on the matter and advised that if the resident remained unhappy he could contact this service, his MP and/or the local councillor.
  14. The resident replied and asked the landlord to confirm that its recent response was its final decision so he could take the matter to court. He stated that he was not told that there was no parking at the viewing, and was only told when he was handed the keys. He was concerned that the staff parking bay was not a staff parking bay and the landlord had said that to cover itself as it was not aware of the spare parking space that no one was using. The resident asked for the formal procedures on how the landlord allocated its parking spaces.
  15. On 21 October 2020, in its internal communication, the landlord confirmed that there was no parking available at the resident’s estate. It was unable to offer the staff/contractors bay to any of the residents on the estate because there were too many residents who had disabilities or other needs for a parking space.
  16. On 22 October 2020, the landlord confirmed by letter to the resident that it had already responded to his complaints and as it had not received a request to escalate it, it had closed his complaint. It also advised that it would not be accepting the resident’s new complaint as it had already addressed it and did not accept new complaints about the same issues that it already formally responded to. It confirmed it had finished its complaint process, and that the resident could contact this service, his MP and local councillor if he was not happy with its final response.

Assessment and findings

  1.   The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service notes that the landlord’s parking bay policy only applies to chargeable parking bays, so is not considered in the investigation given the parking bays here are understood not to be chargeable.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord gave the resident contradictory information. It stated in its response to the resident in July 2015 that it did not have any parking spaces available as it allocated the parking spaces for its rental units when it let the properties, and in its correspondence to the resident in July 2019 it stated that all parking was allocated before the building was handed to the landlord. Whilst this did not change the position for the resident, in that he did not have a parking space, it was unhelpful that he was provided with different explanations and this will not have assisted him in understanding the landlord’s position.
  3. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement gives no provision for an allocated parking bay and the Ombudsman accepts that the parking bays were given to the wheelchair accessible units and to the properties that had larger families. This allocation could have taken place either before or after the properties were handed to the landlord and the outcome would have remained the same for the resident who has an one-bed, general needs property.
  4. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s position and reasons for requesting a space, and notes that he has issues with mobility. Whilst his dissatisfaction with the landlord not having allocated him a space is entirely understandable, the landlord is entitled to make such decisions about how it manages its housing stock and in the Ombudsman’s view its overall approach to the allocation of spaces is reasonable.
  5. Moreover, the resident and the landlord have contradicting accounts on when the resident was told he would not be allocated a parking space and there is no definitive evidence to support either account. However, it is apparent that there was some confusion on this matter and the landlord did not make it clear whether it had a waiting list or if the parking spaces were permanently allocated to the original properties, so a recommendation has been made to the landlord in respect to this.
  6. The landlord’s internal communication in May 2020 suggests that the parking bay for its staff members cannot be allocated to a resident because there were too many residents that were in need of a parking space. If the landlord implemented a waiting list when it was handed the properties, this could have prevented the issue as it would have been able to allocate the space to a resident who would have benefited from a parking space. Although, this does not mean that the parking bay would have been allocated to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s complaint was satisfactory. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for an allocated parking space.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints appropriately. The explanation it gave was reasonable, although there was some conflicting information, and there is no evidence that the resident’s tenancy agreement came with a parking bay.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to clarify to the resident if there is a waiting list for the parking bays or if they are now permanently allocated to specific properties.
  2. The landlord to ensure that information about parking during property advertisement and allocation stages is accurate, manages expectations and minimises potential confusion.