Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202331942)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331942

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

30 July 2025

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 handling of the resident’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) and parking management concerns, and her associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2002. Her complaints to the landlord were made by her representative, who handled all related communications on her behalf. The representative also lives in her property, and holds a parking space license with the landlord. For the purposes of this report both the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’, except where it is necessary to distinguish between them.
3. During March and April 2023, the resident reported various parking issues to the landlord, some of which he said “constitute ASB”. The landlord provided a web link to report issues to its parking contractor. The resident complained that the contractor had not previously acted and that the landlord did not “take ASB seriously”. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 20 April 2023, advised the actions that the contractor had taken and encouraged him to report further issues via the link.
4. From May 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that parking issues were being caused by other nearby residents running vehicle businesses. He asked it to escalate his complaint on 29 September 2023, as it had not responded to his last contact in July 2023. The landlord told him that its contractor was dealing with the parking issues but that it would pass his vehicle business concerns to its ASB team. It later accepted that it did not do so.
5. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 10 November 2023, apologised for the “shortcomings in communication” and offered £50 compensation. It advised how it would investigate his reports of vehicle businesses. It offered to install a removable bollard in his parking space. He told us that he declined this, as he did not feel it would help.
6. The resident made a further complaint about ASB and associated parking issues on 13 April 2024. He said that a neighbour had had an all-day party and that the road had been blocked. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 26 April 2024, mainly concerned the parking matters and did not refer to the party. The resident expressed his disappointment with this the following month. The landlord apologised and explained its ASB policy and intentions.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 July 2024. He said that there had been a further party the previous month with loud music. He stated that a motorbike and bin were regularly blocking the path. He said that another nearby property was running a car washing business, which did the same.
8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 20 August 2024, following its panel review meeting with him 1 week earlier. It explained the actions it had taken regarding his parking and ASB reports but accepted it had not communicated this effectively. It said that it had considered matters from when he had made his 2023 complaint. It explained the delays and failings that this review had also identified. It apologised and offered £300 compensation.
9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. Her representative said that the parking issues remain unchanged and prevent her hospital transport from accessing the road. He provided photographs of the path being blocked by seats and items associated with a car washing business, and of damage to his car caused by others difficulty in turning. He said that he wants the landlord to paint ‘no parking’ on the turning area of the road and to address the other issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident’s representative’s parking space license is a contractual relationship with the landlord. It is separate from the resident’s tenancy agreement and occupation of her property. That means this is not automatically something the Ombudsman can investigate, and we have had to consider our jurisdiction regarding the matter.
11. In this specific case, the resident’s (representative) complaint and reports often combined parking management and ASB issues. The landlord responded to both matters and, in the earlier part of the case, did not distinguish between them to the resident. Because of that, we have used our discretion to investigate the complaint.
12. The resident highlighted the current parking issues, which he said have not improved. This investigation is focused on matters up to the conclusion of his complaint in August 2024. The resident could consider making a new complaint to the landlord about the current matters. However, any complaint that is specifically about the parking alone would likely be outside of our jurisdiction for the reasons explained above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and complaints

13. The landlord’s estate management policy states that parking is “treated as ASB” when it is dangerous or blocks access. Its ASB policy says that it will not handle one-off celebrations as ASB.
14. The evidence shows failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and complaint from March 2023. This included its informal reply to his April 2023 complaint, which it only later referred to as a ‘stage 1 response’. There were also delays in it escalating the complaint, and in it responding at stage 2.
15. While the resident referred to many of his parking reports as ‘ASB’, the landlord considered that they did not meet the definition in its policy. The landlord signposted him to where parking issues should be reported and, at various stages, explained the actions its contractor had taken. Nonetheless, it should have clearly explained to him what it would, and would not, treat as ASB. There is no evidence that it did so until later.
16. The landlord also failed to respond, until later, to the resident’s reports of vehicle businesses. The evidence shows that it did subsequently investigate his similar reports as potential ASB. It also more clearly explained its actions concerning his reports of the neighbour’s two parties, held in March and June 2024, and why they did not constitute ASB in line with its policy. It did similarly with his motorbike and bin reports.
17. The landlord recognised that the resident’s 2024 complaint concerned the same matters he had complained about the previous year. Its 2024 stage 2 response stated that it had therefore “taken the opportunity to review the case in its entirety”. It explained the failings that it had identified, which were largely in line with those identified in this report as set out above.
18. The landlord expanded upon this in the information that it provided to us. Along with its improved handling of the resident’s second complaint, which was broadly in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, this demonstrated its learning from the complaint. Its apology, and £350 total compensation, was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
19. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for the failings in its handling of the resident’s earlier reports and complaint. It demonstrated its learning from his complaint and, while it is acknowledged that the resident has said that the issues have not improved, its redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendation

21. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident any part of its total £350 compensation that it has not already done so.
    2. Consider contacting the resident to listen to his current parking and path concerns and discuss how it may address this.