Sovereign Network Group (202440772)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property, which has its own driveway. She has physical health conditions and 2 of her children are disabled and hold blue badges. She is unhappy the landlord will not provide her with a permit to use a disabled parking bay in the street.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking permit.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was no maladministration in:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a parking permit
   2. the landlord’s handling of the complaint

Summary of reasons

The handling of the request for a parking permit

5. The landlord considered the resident’s request for a parking permit and declined this in line with its parking policy.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

7. The resident first contacted the landlord to request a parking permit for a disabled bay in July 2023, when she moved into the property. The landlord advised her she was not eligible for a permit but could apply for a visitor permit (scratch card). This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
8. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response of 13 September 2023 that its parking policy only allowed for 1 permit per household that does not have its own driveway. Houses with driveways are not eligible for a permit for an additional space. This response was fair, in line with its policy, and provided a clear explanation.
9. On 1 August 2024 the resident asked the landlord to make a new request for a permit to use a disabled bay, as she said her children should not have to walk long distances. On 24 September 2024 the landlord resent her a copy of its previous complaint response and said its position had not changed. While it could have responded more quickly, it had already made its position clear and its response was reasonable.
10. The resident asked to raise a complaint on 17 October 2024, as she said she should be able to use a disabled bay as her children hold blue badges. She said that not allowing her to use a disabled bay was discrimination. In its stage 1 response the landlord again reiterated its policy and referred the resident back to its original complaint response. It said that any additional vehicles that do not fit on her driveway would need to be parked outside of the street.
11. In her escalation request, the resident said that there were disabled bays that were not being used. She also said she had been told there were houses with driveways who had been given a permit as well. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was not aware of any households having additional permits. It said if she could provide further information, it would be happy to investigate this, which was reasonable. It said this would not change its decision in relation to her request.
12. We have seen no evidence to show other households do have additional permits. However, it is not within our remit to consider what a landlord may or may not have given another resident. We can only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request and whether it acted in line with its policies.
13. We appreciate the resident feels that the landlord has discriminated against her family’s disabilities. However, the landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response that she has children with medical conditions. It recognised her need to park close by but highlighted that she has her own drive, which is accessible for her car, which was reasonable.
14. The landlord’s parking policy is clear that it has a one car per household policy. It states that only properties without a driveway are eligible to apply for a permit, and it only allows 1 permit for each of those properties. Its policy balances the needs of all its residents, including those with disabilities by providing opportunities for access to parking, but recognises it cannot always fulfil the demand. It has acted in line with its policy in declining the resident’s request.

15. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint and responded within 10 working days (17 October 2024 to 31 October 2024) – in line with its complaints policy
    2. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days and sent its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement (21 November 2024 – 30 December 2024) – in line with its complaints policy
16. The landlord had previously responded to the same complaint in September 2023, which the resident did not escalate at that time. The landlord could have progressed the complaint straight to stage 2 in October 2024. However, given the time that had passed, it was not unreasonable for it to raise a new stage 1 complaint. It responded to this complaint in line with its policy at both stages.