Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202007018)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007018

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

21 May 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a second parking permit.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is a two-bedroom flat, situated on an estate with similar properties.
  3. The landlord does not operate a “parking allocation policy” because these arrangements differ between estates and are dependent on local authority restrictions when properties are built. In this instance, at the advice of its contractor, the landlord decided to grant one parking permit per property, to ensure that all households have at least one parking space. For properties with two vehicles, the landlord advised residents of nearby available parking.

Summary of events

  1. On 11 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that he had emailed it two weeks prior, with regard to obtaining a second parking permit for the property, and was still waiting for a response. The resident followed this up on 22 September 2020, and confirmed that he wanted to “escalate this matter to a formal complaint” about not having a residents parking permit for his vehicle despite being a tenant and receiving parking tickets for this. The landlord replied to him on the same day, acknowledged the resident’s request, confirmed that it had logged the complaint, and informed the resident that it would respond to this within 20 working days.
  2. On 24 September 2020, the resident wrote to his local councillor regarding the landlord’s refusal to “issue [him] with a parking permit for [his] work vehicle”. The resident advised that:
    1. The landlord “highlighted” that it would only issue a second parking permit in “exceptional circumstances”.
    2. When discussing the matter with his solicitor, he was advised that the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic “constitutes exceptional circumstance”.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 October 2020, advising the following:
    1. As per its email of 25 September 2020, it would not issue a second parking permit for the resident’s property.
    2. It appreciated the difficulties encountered by households with two vehicles and confirmed that the parking measures would be “reviewed again in [six] months’ time”.
    3. It hoped “that by laying out the number of properties versus the number of spaces” the resident would “see the reasons” behind the parking measures imposed.
    4. The resident’s complaint had been responded to at the first stage of its complaints process.
  4. The resident responded on the same day and requested for his complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure, as he “remain[ed] dissatisfied” with the landlord’s decision and, among other matters, he noted that:
    1. He had “supplied a number of photos [over] a [ten] day period clearly showing” parking spaces that were empty both during the day and the night.
    2. Over the coming weeks he would supply the landlord with photos of empty parking spaces, as he felt that it was “unable to substantiate the ratio of vehicles to [empty] parking spaces”.
    3. The landlord’s decision to issue “second permits on the grounds of disability” was based on its discretion and not a “blanket policy”.
  5. On 12 November 2020, the landlord issued a stage two final complaint response, in which it addressed all of the points previously raised by the resident and advised that:
    1. Because there was “one parking space per property”, following a survey, its contractor had “recommended allocating one [parking] permit per household only”, to ensure that each property would have a guaranteed parking space by their home. However, it reiterated that the parking measures would be reviewed within six months, and that there was off street parking close by in both directions that meant that there was no reason why anyone should be prevented from using their own vehicle or be forced to use public transport.
    2. It could not disclose the reasons why it may have “granted additional parking permits” for certain other residents because all additional applications were “considered” on an individual needs’ basis. It also clarified that it did not profit from any parking fine revenue and that it did not receive payments from its contractor that had a contract to patrol its car parks.
  6. The resident then complained to this Service about the landlord’s handling of his request for a second parking permit and we contacted it for further information on his case. In its subsequent correspondence to us of 25 February 2021, the landlord advised us that it does not have a “parking allocation policy” because these arrangements vary due to factors outside of its control, as well as that it had no vulnerabilities listed for the resident’s household.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents should only park in the spaces “allocated” to them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a second parking permit

  1. As detailed above, at paragraph 11, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents should only park in the spaces allocated to them. Therefore, the resident wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2020 and asked for a complaint to be lodged, in respect of its handling of his request for a second parking permit. The landlord issued the stage one complaint response on 8 October 2020, in which it confirmed that it would not provide the resident with an additional parking permit, and the stage two final complaint response on 12 November 2020, in which it advised that its decision to only allocate one parking permit per household was based on the number of parking spaces available, and on its contractor’s advice.
  2. This Service appreciates that it would be inconvenient for residents with two vehicles to park one of them outside of the estate. However, in this instance, the landlord acted in a reasonable manner towards the resident because its decision was based on the fact that there was one allocated parking space per property, and on its contractor’s advice to allocate one parking permit per household, to ensure that there was enough space for all properties with at least one parking space by each home.
  3. In the email to it dated 8 October 2020, the resident mentioned that he had supplied the landlord with photographs to demonstrate that there were several parking spaces that were left empty at all times. In respect of this, it is noted that the landlord has a responsibility to act in a fair and impartial manner towards all of its residents. Considering that the landlord could not ensure two parking permits for all properties, it was reasonable of it to provide just one permit per household, and to provide the resident with advice on nearby available parking, even if that left a number of unoccupied spaces on the estate.
  4. In the same email, the resident mentioned that the landlord’s decision to issue “second permits on the grounds of disability” was based on its discretion and not a “blanket policy”. To which in response, on 12 November 2020, the landlord advised that it could not disclose the reasons why it may have issued additional parking permits to other residents, as these were considered on an individual needs’ basis. Furthermore, the landlord advised this Service that it did not operate a “parking allocation policy” due to the differing circumstances between estates.
  5. In respect of the above, it is noted that the landlord acted in a fair manner by refusing to disclose the reasons that it considered when reviewing applications for additional parking permits, as sharing this type of information would have indirectly disclosed details about other residents’ individual needs. Additionally, taking into account the fact that the landlord would face a variety of situations, it is not unexpected that it would not have policies in place that would cover all possible circumstances, and for it to instead use its discretion when dealing with certain issues including parking.
  6. Although the resident reported that the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions constituted an exceptional circumstance that would justify the landlord granting him a second parking permit, these restrictions affected all other residents as well as non-residents and so alone were not part of the resident’s individual needs that required a second permit. It also provided this Service with confirmation that it had no vulnerabilities listed for his household that might justify granting him a second parking permit, for which no evidence was provided to demonstrate that he required this more than most other residents.
  7. Nevertheless, it is of concern that the resident also reported that there were permanently empty parking spaces that the landlord had discretion to grant him a second parking permit for, as it did not have a specific “parking allocation policy” preventing it from doing so. It was therefore appropriate that it confirmed to him on 8 October and 12 November 2020 that it would review the parking measures again in six months’ time when the circumstances including residents’ individual needs may have changed. As a consequence, the landlord has been recommended below to carry out the above parking review and to communicate the outcome of this to the resident, if it has not done so already, including by considering a further survey of residents as to their current parking needs.
  8. To conclude, this Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a second parking permit because it based its decision to refuse this on the number of parking spaces available, and its contractor’s assessment and advice. Moreover, the landlord was reasonable in providing advice on additional nearby parking space and by informing the resident that the parking measures would be reviewed in six months’ time.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a second parking permit.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted in a fair manner by providing all residents with one parking permit per property and by then considering applications for additional permits based on a case–by–case basis on residents’ individual needs.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the parking measures at the resident’s property again and communicate the outcome of this to him, if it has not done so already, including by considering a further survey of residents as to their current parking needs.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.