Peabody Trust (202119308)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119308

Peabody Trust

25 October 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. This complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dispute of a parking fine.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The communal car parking facilities are owned by the landlord, who employs a contractor to enforce any restrictions. Residents are eligible to park when in possession of a permit issued by the contractor.
  2. In January 2021 the landlord’s parking contractor changed. Soon afterwards, the resident asked the landlord for a new parking permit. The records state that the resident called to chase the permit on 15 February. On 18 February the landlord asked the contractors to issue the resident with a temporary permit, which it did later in the day on 19 February. At some point on 19 February, the resident received a parking fine. The timing of the fine is not clear from the records, but the resident’s dispute of the fine is at the heart of the complaint.
  3. The resident unsuccessfully challenged the fine with both the contractor, and with the landlord, through its complaints process. However, the fine was not paid, and matters progressed through the contractor’s enforcement processes, resulting in a county court judgement (CCJ) against the resident.
  4. In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that she feels that she is not responsible for the parking fine. She explained she had incurred significant expense, distress, and inconvenience from the landlord’s contractor’s pursuit of the outstanding fine and the resulting debt.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings;”
  2. Information provided by both the landlord, and the resident, confirms that the issue of the validity of the parking fine from 19 February 2022 has been taken to legal action resulting in a determination by the courts, in the form of the CCJ. Accordingly, this matter is not one the Ombudsman can investigate, because the matter has already been decided in court, where the dispute will have, or should have, been raised and considered.