Orbit Housing Association Limited (202423319)

Background

1. We ordered the landlord to explore alternative parking options for the resident in our determination dated 31 May 2024. The resident raised a further complaint in August 2024 about the outcome offered by the landlord following its review of parking options.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the outcome of its review of alternative parking options.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the outcome of its review of alternative parking options.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the outcome of its review of alternative parking options

4. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns andexplained the reasons for its decision. This was in line with its additional assistance and reasonable adjustment policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. At stage 1, the landlord wrongly said the resident’s complaint was the same as a previous one and refused to look at it again. The landlord did not tell the resident if it upheld her complaint about staff discussing her complaint with neighbours. It did not apologise for these failures, so it did not fully put things right.

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 did not investigate

6. The resident said she does not believe the landlord acted in accordance with her request for a reasonable adjustment in line with the Equality Act 2010. We are unable to determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with the law. This is best dealt with by the courts where expert evidence can be considered. The resident may wish to seek further legal advice about this issue. However, we will consider whether the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies in dealing with the resident’s concerns.
7. The resident raised concerns about neighbours and their visitors parking in front of her house after her previous complaint. She said access to her garage and front door was frequently blocked. The resident was concerned emergency services would be unable to assist her if necessary. We have not considered these issues as they did not form part of this complaint. However, the resident can raise a new complaint with the landlord about these issues.

What we did investigate

8. Under the landlord’s additional assistance and reasonable adjustment policy, the landlord says it will consider whether a requested adjustment is reasonable. It says it will consider how effective the adjustment will be and the practicality of making the adjustment. It will also consider the cost of the adjustment and whether this is possible based on the landlord’s resources. The policy says when considering practicality, the landlord will assess whether there are reasons the adjustment requested by a resident cannot be put in place.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the outcome of its parking review by explaining why the landlord was unable to install a new bay directly in front of the resident’s house. It said this would block access to a neighbouring property’s allocated parking.
10. The landlord explored alternative options. It asked a neighbour to swap parking bays with the resident, and considered installing a disabled bay opposite the resident’s home. It explained this would be available for all disabled residents, as there was limited space at the development.
11. Although it was unable to provide the resident with the outcome she requested, the landlord explored alternative solutions. It explained the reasons for its decision in line with its policy.
12. A contractor attended to install the disabled bay in November 2024, but they told the landlord it was not possible because there was insufficient space. It would have been better if the landlord had inspected the site before telling the resident it would be installing a disabled bay. However, the resident told the landlord she did not want a disabled bay to be installed.
13. Overall, there was no maladministration in the handling of the resident’s concerns following its review of alternative parking options. It explained why it could not install a space in front of the resident’s garage. It explored alternative options and explained it was unable to install an additional allocated bay for the resident or a disabled bay, due to the limited space available at the development.

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code 2024 (the Code) was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
15. The landlord had a 2-stage complaints policy. It said it would acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it said it would respond within 20 working days. This was in line with the Code.
16. The landlord responded at stages 1 and 2 within the time limit set out in its policy.
17. In its stage 1 response on 23 August 2024, the landlord mistakenly said the resident was raising a complaint which had previously been through its complaint process. It rejected her complaint, and this was not in line with its policy.
18. The landlord recognised its error at stage 2 and referred the case back to stage 1 for investigation. This led to a delay resolving the resident’s complaint, as she had to go through stage 1 and 2 again to complete the landlord’s complaint process.
19. The landlord also failed to recognise it had already issued a further stage 1 response on 20 September 2024 which dealt with the same issue. This was confusing and frustrating for the resident. She received 3 stage 1 responses and 2 stage 2 responses about her complaint between August 2024 and January 2025. The landlord did not apologise for the mistake, duplication, or delay.
20. As part of her complaint, the resident said the landlord’s employees had discussed her complaint with her neighbours. In its second stage 1 response in October 2024, the landlord said it had asked a neighbour to swap their parking bay, but could not confirm whether her complaint had been discussed. It said it would investigate, but it could not discuss the findings of an internal investigation. It said this would be dealt with through its human resources procedure. We would not expect a landlord to disclose any human resources measures relating to individual staff. However, the landlord should have confirmed whether the outcome of its investigation meant it would uphold the resident’s complaint about this issue. The landlord failed to comply with the Code, which says the landlord must confirm its decision on each of the resident’s complaint issues, and the reasons for its decisions.
21. Overall, there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. There were delays, duplication, and the landlord failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not apologise for these failings and therefore it failed to fully put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not provide us with records of all the resident’s complaints and escalation requests, or its responses acknowledging the resident’s complaint correspondence. Better complaints record management may have prevented delay and duplication in the investigation of the resident’s complaint.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the outcome of its parking review was clear. The landlord explained the reasons for the outcome of its review and the steps it had taken to try to find a solution.