Peabody Trust (202013606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013606

Peabody Trust

12 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of planned bollard installation and related parking issues.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a house with one allocated parking bay. The property is shared ownership which the resident acquired on 21 July 2011.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. Stage one will be responded to within ten working days and stage two will also be responded to within ten working days. At both stages if the landlord needs more time to respond it will notify the resident of the extension and when they can expect a full response.
There is no parking-controlled management in place at the location of the resident’s property.
Section 3(26) of the resident’s lease agreement states “Not to park or to suffer or permit to be parked upon each parking space (if any) included with the demise any vehicle other than a private motor car or such other motor vehicle as may be first approved in writing by the Landlord acting in its absolute discretion”

Summary of events

As part of the resident’s lease agreement, residents are designated one parking space per household in the parking area outside the properties and there is a total of three spaces. The landlord had recently changed a grassed section of the parking area into a paved area.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to summarise a visit it had made to the resident’s property on 30 January 2020. The landlord stated it had discussed with the resident that the newly paved area outside the residents property was not an area for vehicles to park. As an alternative option the landlord agreed with the resident that he was authorised to park one additional vehicle in the car park of a nearby unit of accommodation.
On 4 October 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord after being notified by the landlord that bollards would be installed at the paved area. The resident stated:
1. A neighbour had said the resident’s van parked outside his property was blocking the neighbour in. The resident had sent video evidence to the landlord to show that was not the case.
2. A manager of the landlord who was responsible for paving the area had said the resident could park there as it had visited the area and could see the van used was not blocking the neighbour in.
3. He was informed by the manager the matter was resolved. The resident stated he had offered to attend mediation or to swap car park spaces with the neighbour, but the neighbour refused both offers.
4. Once the landlord’s manager was no longer in the job the neighbour complained again, and a new manager visited the property. The manager informed the resident he could load his van in the newly paved area but would have to park the van in a car park near his property. He agreed to this.
5. After that manager left the job, the neighbour had complained again and the resident was told bollards would be put outside the property. He stated if bollards were put outside, he would block in his neighbours when loading and unloading his van.
6. He and another neighbour were strongly opposed to the bollards and was not consulted prior to their approval.
7. The issues the resident wanted to raise were:
  1. Neither were consulted about the bollards being installed outside his property.
  2. The landlord discussed the resident’s lease with the neighbour in breach of data protection.
  3. The resident’s wife received a voice mail message not intended for her and that was how the resident found out about the planned bollards.
  4. All three neighbours used their vehicles to load and unload out of their parking bays for deliveries. When the resident unloads or loads his van, he parks in an area where he was not blocking other vehicles from arriving or leaving their parking bay. The resident was not loading or unloading for a long period of time and when finished he parked in the alternative carpark agreed with the landlord.
  5. The issues had severely impacted on the mental health of the resident’s wife.
8. The resident felt if the area next to their own parking space was paved, they could park further along, and this may abate any the animosity shown towards them by the neighbour.
9. The resident asked for a signed copy of the lease for the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 October 2020 and stated a complaint handler would get back to the resident by 20 October 2020.
On 20 October 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord stated it wrote to the resident and said it was sorry the resident felt he had to raise a formal complaint. The landlord said it had initially arranged for a bollard to be put in, but the decision had been overturned. The landlord did not inform the resident who made the decision. It understood the resident would continue to park in the agreed carpark and only bring his van to the property to load and unload for a maximum 30 minutes a day.
On 4 November 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. The resident felt the neighbour was complaining so that he and another neighbour would have to park further along within their own parking bays. If this was to happen the resident’s wife would be stepping onto mud especially during wet weather. The resident asked the landlord to look into paving the grass area next to his parking bay, so his wife could park further across, the resident hoped this would make neighbourly relations peaceful and less resentful. The resident proposed the money that would have been used for the bollards be used towards the paving and for all neighbours to be consulted on his proposal.
The landlord responded on 16 November 2020 and said the decision to carry out estate improvements was through its Housing and Neighbourhood team. It would ask the team to look into the request.
On 22 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that despite being told by the landlord the bollards were not being installed, he had received a letter saying a bollard would be installed and all neighbours would have a key. The resident asked why the bollards were being installed without consultation and despite the landlord previously saying the decision had been overturned. The resident said that every time there was a new manager something new came up over the same issue. The resident stated that the neighbour’s original complaint related to his van parking in the newly paved area and blocking their parking bay. However, the landlord had been eyewitnesses that it was not the case so installing bollards would not solve that complaint.
The landlord responded the next day and said there was a handover between managers, so the new manager would be aware of the background of the situation. The landlord said it appreciated why the resident was upset as it had been inconsistent in its approach. The landlord said it would speak with the new manager to understand why the decision was overturned.
On 23 November 2020 the resident responded and suggested to the landlord that a sign was erected that stated the parking space was only for subcontractors or residents and for loading/unloading to be a maximum 45 minutes.
On 24 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that an independent review had been carried out and concluded that a bollard would be beneficial. The resident’s suggestion about signage would be passed to a manager to consider. The landlord as the costs to install the bollards were absorbed by the landlord and the landlord was within its rights to carry out improvement on its land, a consultation with its customers was not necessary.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to identify the independent reviewers. The resident said he found it disturbing that the landlord said that as it was absorbing the costs the resident did not need to be consulted. The resident said the situation was started by the neighbour lying about his van blocking them in, with the landlord believing the neighbour without checking.
On 24 November 2020 the resident wrote to the new manager and said he would like to speak to them to discuss how to ease tension between the neighbours. The resident proposed paving, to give the neighbour more space to park their car.
On 25 November 2020 the resident asked the landlord if the decision regarding the bollards was final. The resident stated he said in his official complaint that every time a new manager took over, they overturned what the previous manager had said based on lies from the neighbour. If he was unable to park his van outside his house, he would be unable to load and unload and not be able to work. He thought the landlord had resolved the issue, but a new manager arrived and was able to overturn the decision from the previous manager and the person handling the complaint without consultation. The resident said he attached footage of the neighbour leaving her bay and arriving back home without entering the newly paved area which, he said this proved that when his van was in the newly paved area the neighbour would not be blocked in. The resident said the landlord had based all its actions without going to look or check the area first.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord informed the resident the decision about the installation of the bollard was its final decision. The landlord informed the resident he could escalate his complaint to our Service if he remained dissatisfied and provided our Service’s contact details. Later that day the landlord discussed the complaint internally and it was suggested mediation could be offered between the resident and the neighbour.
On 28 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and asked who did the independent review after the landlord had already upheld his complaint.
The landlord responded on 2 December 2020 and said the resident’s complaint had not been independently reviewed but the decision to install the bollard was independently reviewed. The landlord said the review was because the matter was not getting resolved regardless of how many managers had been previously involved. The landlord confirmed the review had been taken by its Estates Services Team.
The resident responded the same day to say it seemed like the decision was made without the officer’s knowledge, as they had already told the resident the bollards would not be installed. The landlord had upheld his complaint and was unaware the decision had been changed until it was checked up. The resident said he was not informed about the review of the bollard decision, and he had taken the decision from the complaint handler as the final decision. The resident said this reiterated his point that he got told one thing by one manager then it got changed by the next manager.
On 5 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said it had been ten weeks since the landlord’s final decision about the bollards and the resident stated he had contacted this Service. The resident informed the landlord that the neighbour had been allowing workmen to park across the parking bay. This was not conducive to him, or the other neighbour being able to get in or out of the shared area. The resident said when asking the workmen to move, he was goaded by the neighbour to have a conflict so they could raise a complaint. The resident provided the landlord pictures of the workmen parking and pictures of where he parked his van. The resident stated he had no problem with workmen parking across the parking bays as he could ask them to move when needed to, but his issue was the neighbour complaining about him when he was not blocking anyone in.
On 11 February 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said he had not had a response to his email sent to the new manager in November 2020. The resident said he had sent a lot of emails over the previous weekend and had no response to them. The resident said the neighbour continued to allow workmen to park where they wanted and blocking parking bays but complained when he parked in an area that was not blocking anyone.
On 2 March 2021 this Service, following contact from the resident, wrote to the landlord and asked for copies of the stage one and final complaint responses as the resident stated he had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 4 March 2021 the resident contacted this Service and said the landlord’s manager had visited the property and had seen the paved area. The resident said the landlord’s manager would write a letter confirming that no bollards would be installed, and it appeared the matter was resolved.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and two of his neighbours regarding the parking at the property. The landlord said it had visited the site numerous times and it had decided to reverse the previous decision to erect lockable bollards. It said it would not erect bollards on the area then or in the future. They reasoned that residents may have accidentally reversed into the bollards, causing damage to their vehicles. The letter also stated the space concerned would be used by the resident to top up their work vehicle as and when required but the resident was not to park the vehicle there overnight. It noted that the area would be for contractors only and no visitors would be able to park. The landlord proposed a small flower bed area at the left of the car park be paved to increase the car space area for all residents.
On 25 August 2021 internal landlord correspondence evidenced the landlord stated the complaint response had been sent to the resident and he was happy with the response but that the resident stated that for a full resolution to the complaint, the response needed to be sent to the other neighbours. It acknowledged that it had told the resident on 12 May 2021 that all addresses concerned would be written to with the response but at that time only the resident had been issued with the response.
The resident contacted this Service on 25 November 2021 to say the landlord had written to all the neighbours with the update on the parking arrangements, but the terms had not been kept to since. The resident had advised that he was unhappy as that letter ultimately did not resolve his complaint. The resident also stated to this Service he did not think the letter issued to him was a formal complaint response issued as part of the landlord’s complaint process and that he was therefore still owed a formal complaint response. The landlord was asked by this Service to escalate the resident’s complaint to the next stage if it had not completed the landlord’s formal complaints process.
The landlord spoke to this Service on 3 December 2021 and stated it had contacted the resident and confirmed he had requested the complaint be escalated to stage two. The landlord confirmed it would arrange for the complaint to be acknowledged, and a final response issued within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 January 2022. The landlord stated:
1. It had received the initial complaint on 4 October 2020 and formally responded to the complaint on 20 October 2020.
2. It was contacted by this Service for the complaint to be escalated in November 2021.
3. There were no current plans to install bollards, the situation would be monitored and reviewed if required.
4. Due to clauses in the resident’s lease a van was not permitted to be parked but an agreement had been reached with the landlord for permission to load and unload the van for a maximum of 30 minutes per day which was agreed by the resident.
5. The reviewing manager was not able to visit the site as requested to investigate allegations made by the neighbour that when the van was parked, they were unable to park. After speaking with members of the landlord’s staff and looking at images of the parking area via google maps it did not see why a vehicle could not enter or leave their parking space.
6. A site visit had already taken place to discuss the resident’s request for a section of grass to be paved to allow the resident to park further along. The decision was that it could not be paved over as it was a communal garden area.
7. Offered £50 compensation for the delay in its action taken to resolve the issues and apologised to the resident.
8. The resident’s complaint highlighted that when a decision was made that affected communal areas then a formal consultation process should be followed ensuring that all affected customers are contacted, and a fair and reasonable decision was reached.
The resident responded to the stage two response on 18 January 2022 and stated:
1. He and another neighbour did not want bollards installed and if they were installed it would cause him to block the parking area when unloading and loading his van.
2. He had a letter from the landlord giving written permission under the terms of the lease to park his van in the landlord’s bays. He was told not to park his van in the newly paved area overnight, but he could load and unload there and once finished, park in the parking bays and not the newly paved area.
3. The lease clause regarding the parking of a motor vehicle did not define what a motor vehicle was, and some discretionary definitions put a van as a motor vehicle.
4. The agreement the landlord referred to about unloading and loading the van was about a different area outside his house, it was talking about the newly paved area and not his parking bay.
5. For three years only one manager from the landlord visited the site during that time. The situation had continued due to the landlord not informing the neighbour that their vehicle was not being blocked in.
6. The site visit was not regarding a request for the grass area to be paved but was for an installation of an EV charging point.

Post Complaint

On 15 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated the landlord had granted access for a limited period for the resident to use the shared space, but it had photographic evidence of the van breaching on the agreement. The landlord said it was issuing the resident with a warning and that a further breach would lead to a withdrawal of the agreement, it would instruct contractors to install the bollards and would withdraw the permission to park on the alternative parking area. The landlord said the residents lease stated commercial vans were not allowed to park on the premises.
The resident responded the next day and stated as per his agreement with the landlord he filled up his van in the newly paved area then moved from the paved area and had never broken that agreement once. The resident said the decision not to install the bollards was due to his previous complaint to the landlord which led to the landlord changing its mind multiple times. The resident also said the agreement to park the van on the alternative car parking area was nothing to do with the bollards. The resident stated the lease did not say commercial vans were not allowed to park on the premises.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and the neighbours with an update to the parking arrangements. The landlord stated:
1. The shared space on the drive could be used for all residents’ contractors and for deliveries of goods only.
2. Residents and their visitors should not park in the shared area at any time.
3. Residents should only park in their allocated bays.
4. It reminded all parties that the covenants in the lease stated that consent was needed for any vehicles other than a private motor car, no caravans or boats and no vehicles which remained untaxed.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of planned bollard installation and related parking issues.

From the evidence provided the landlord has failed to take control of the parking situation at the property and has lacked clarity in its decisions and communication with the resident. The evidence shows the decision to install the bollards at the property had changed on at least two occasions during the period considered in this complaint. With the exception of the decision made on 29 June 2021 which gave the resident an explanation why the decision regarding the bollards was made, most of the decisions reached by the landlord failed to provide an explanation to the resident why the decision had been made.
It is understandable why this would create confusion and inconvenience to the resident as the decision changed on a consistent basis without reasoning being provided to the resident about why the latest decision was being made and why it differed from the previous decision.
The landlord in its stage one response stated bollards would not be erected. Following its stage one response the landlord referred to an independent review taking place to decide whether the installation of bollards would be beneficial, but it did not provide further information as to why the decision was changed. The landlord has not provided this service with evidence of this review.
Throughout the complaint process the resident made reference to decisions regarding the bollards being overturned when a new manager was appointed by the landlord. The evidence provided fails to demonstrate that the landlord explained changes in its decisions regarding the bollards to the resident except for the decision on 29 June 2021, or why the decisions made by previous managers were overturned. It is important for a landlord to be clear and transparent to its residents when making a decision. It is also important for a landlord to maintain clear records of previous decisions and the reasoning behind those decisions, especially if it is possible they will be overturned at a later date.
The landlord in its stage two complaint response stated it was unable to visit the site and relied on images from google maps and descriptions from other officers. Although in some circumstances decisions can be reached using this method, in this case the decisions were changing on a regular basis and it is clear that there was a difference of opinion between the resident and the neighbour over a prolonged period of time. Stating to the resident it was unable to visit the area concerned would not have provided the resident with reassurance that the complaint was investigated thoroughly. The landlord visiting the site to view the area affected and speaking with the resident could have helped it develop a better understanding of the circumstances and provide more clarity in its response.
The resident’s complaint consisted of two parking areas – the residents allocated parking bay and the newly paved area, but the landlord was not always clear in its responses about the authorisations granted as to which parking area it was referring to.
As of the final complaint response the landlord had stated the bollards would not be put in place. There will be circumstances where a landlord makes a decision and may need to change that decision in the future based on the circumstances at that time. While this may not be to the agreement of all residents, the landlord has the right to do so. The landlord must, however, ensure that when a decision is made, any affected parties are informed of its intentions at the earliest opportunity and that the reasoning for any decision made is made clear. It would be best practice by the landlord to not make too many changes of decisions where possible. If part of the decision-making process by the landlord requires a consultation under the terms of the lease, then correct procedures must be followed before any decision is made.
Section 3(26)a of the resident’s lease refers to the type of vehicle permitted to park in the resident’s parking bay. The resident’s lease states, “Not to park or to suffer or permit to be parked upon each parking space (if any) included with the demise any vehicle other than a private motor car or such other motor vehicle as may be first approved in writing by the Landlord acting in its absolute discretion”. The lease is clear that only a private motor car can be parked in the space unless approval is given by the landlord for another vehicle type. The landlord in the stage two response informed the resident this meant the van could not be parked in the resident’s parking bay. The landlord was not obliged to agree to a business van using the space.
This service has received no evidence that the landlord has provided approval for a van to be parked in the residents assigned bay and therefore the resident would be in breach of the lease by doing so without permission. If the landlord has provided written confirmation, and that permission has not been withdrawn, then the resident would be entitled to park a van in his allocated parking space.
The landlord in the stage one response confirmed the resident was entitled to park his van in another of its car parks close to the resident’s property. The landlord also confirmed in the stage one response that the resident was entitled to bring his van to the property to load and unload the van for a maximum of thirty minutes per day and that the neighbour had been made aware of that decision. There is no evidence these approvals have been withdrawn however the letter issued post complaint by the landlord on 31 August 2022 stated it superseded previous correspondence about what was authorised in the shared space area but makes no reference to the resident’s previous authorisation to load and unload his van.
The landlord subsequently confirmed to the resident his permission to load and unload his van was unaffected by the new letter. This was a further example of the landlord needing to be clear in its communication to the resident. It is understandable why the resident would be confused by the landlord’s letters as each correspondence provides details of what the landlord has agreed but provides no further explanations how this had affected previous agreements. If any consent is approved or revoked this must be made clear to the resident and neighbours otherwise further confusion and subsequent complaints can arise.
From the evidence provided it is understandable why there was confusion to the resident about decisions made by the landlord and whether those decisions applied to the newly paved area or the resident’s parking bay as some letters issued by the landlord were not clear regarding which areas it was referring to. This is service failure by the landlord and therefore compensation of £100 should be paid to the resident. An order is made at the end of this report for the landlord to clarify to the resident and the neighbours the current parking arrangements in place for the shared area and to clarify to the resident the parking permission for his parking bay.

The landlords handling of the complaint

The stage one response was issued after 13 working days which was three days outside its complaint policy timescale of 10 working days. The email sent by the landlord on the 7 October 2020 said a response would be issued by 20 October 2020. Although the 20 October 2020 would have been 10 working days after the landlord acknowledged the complaint, the time to issue a response starts from the day the complaint is made, not when it was acknowledged. The complaint was made on 4 October 2020, this meant the complaint response should have been issue by 15 October 2020.
The landlord failed to issue the stage one response correctly. The response did not inform the resident it was the formal stage one response. The landlord did not address all of the points made in the resident’s formal complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not show how it had investigated the resident’s complaint, or demonstrated how it could learn from its findings. The landlord did not inform the resident of his escalation rights under its complaints policy.
The landlord informed the resident of this Service’s contact details for him to escalate his complaint. The resident was informed of this on 26 November 2020 which was one month after the stage one response had been issued. The landlord did not inform the resident of its complaint policy process and the need to complete this process before escalating his complaint to this Service. At the time the resident was told how to escalate his complaint to this Service he had not completed the landlord’s internal complaint process or been directed how to do so.
The stage two response was issued significantly late. The landlord states in its complaints policy a stage two response will be issued within 10 working days. The landlord was informed by the resident on 5 February 2021 that he had contacted this Service and was also contacted by this Service on 2 March 2021 requesting it provide this Service with the stage one and final complaint responses. There is no evidence the landlord established the resident had not completed its internal complaint process or took any steps to move the complaint to stage two at either of these times. The stage two response issued to the resident said it was contacted by this Service in November 2021 to escalate the complaint to stage two but failed to acknowledge it was originally contacted by this Service in March 2021. The stage two response was issued 236 working days after the landlord was made aware by the resident that he had made contact with this Service meaning the total time between the stage one and stage two responses was 311 working days.
It is noted that the landlords handling of the stage one response contributed to the delays in the complaint process. When the stage one was issued on 20 October 2020 the landlord did not inform the resident of his escalation rights. The landlord also failed to ask the resident if he wanted to escalate his complaint, following the resident informing it he had contacted this Service on 5 February 2021 or following contact from this Service in March 2021.
The stage two response was more detailed than the stage one response and overall did provide an explanation of its findings to the resident regarding most of the issues raised. The response regarding the bollards however failed to explain to the resident how and why the landlord had reached its determination in its complaint response. The response also failed to acknowledge that the resident had been provided with different outcomes as to whether the bollards would be installed, and the resident was not given any explanation for the regular changing of decisions being made.
The landlord apologised for the delays in resolving the issues and offered £50 in compensation. The landlord was not specific which delays it was referring to. Given the delays in issuing the complaint responses at stage one and at stage two, the inadequate standard of the stage one response including failure to advise the resident of the correct escalation rights and failure to offer a complete explanation for all complaint points at stage two, an award of compensation of £400 is considered appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of planned bollard installation and related parking issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord on regular occasions changed decisions regarding the installation of bollards at the newly paved area at the resident’s property, however when it has made these changes it has failed to appropriately inform the resident of the reasoning for the decisions. The landlord has also not communicated clearly regarding what the resident is allowed to do with the van within the paved area or his parking bay, leading to further uncertainty.
The stage one response was inadequate, the landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage two within a suitable timescale and both responses failed to provide full explanations to all points of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the parking issues at the property.
2. Write to the resident to explain what vehicle(s) are authorised for the resident to park in his own parking bay.
3. Write to the neighbours including the resident explaining the approved parking arrangements for the shared paved area so all residents are clear what is permitted and under what circumstance any future amendments to those arrangements would apply.
4. The landlord reviews its records and ensures the parking agreements for the parking bays and the shared paved area are recorded to ensure if further staff changes occur all staff are aware of the arrangements in place.
5. Pay the resident £400 for its handing of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews its handover processes to ensure if a change of officer occurs, new officers are able to review and understand what has previously been discussed and agreed to enable it to make informed decisions on any new events.