Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202007961)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007961

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

17 May 2022

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 the landlord response to the resident’s reports of:
1. The misuse of parking bays.
2. Noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leasehold shared owner of the landlord’s property. The property is a three-bedroom house which the resident occupies with her young son. The development has a car park within which residents have been allocated designated bays. There are also visitor bays available for use by those visiting the development and/or its residents.
The resident moved to the property in March 2018. Soon after moving in, the resident sought clarity from the landlord about the parking arrangements as the use of the car park by some of her neighbours had been the cause of tension. The resident explained that her neighbours had space outside their property to park three cars. She said that this was the same for the other three-bedroom properties within the development; however, she had been told that one of the spaces outside of her property was a visitor bay. As such, there was only space for one vehicle outside her property. The resident asked if the landlord could provide some clarification, and why she had not been informed earlier that one of the bays outside her property was a visitor bay.
The landlord responded the next day and advised that all properties within the development had two parking bays. It added that there were three visitor bays across the car park. The landlord said that the bays would be numbered in due course, which would provide clarity. It also provided the resident with a copy of the car park plan which had the bays marked and the locations of the visitor bays.
It is not clear what transpired following this; however, in May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord’s property manager (the manager) to discuss her concerns as parking continued to be a problem. Following a conversation, the resident emailed the manager and asked if the landlord could follow up on having the spaces marked out as per the previous assurance – and in accordance with the plan. The resident asked if the manager could write to all residents asking them to make use of the visitor spaces so that vehicles were spread evenly within the car park and not all parked outside her property.
In June, the landlord wrote to all residents within the development to remind them that the visitor parking bays were reserved for visitors only. Within its correspondence, the landlord said that there were three visitor bays within the car park and residents should exercise consideration that these were used for the intended purpose. The landlord also provided a diagram highlighting the visitor bays.
It is noted from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman that the manager subsequently sought legal advice about the situation, and queried what could be do in the circumstances to monitor the situation and enforce parking controls where necessary. The manger added that the situation had been the cause of conflict between the resident and her neighbour, and that the resident had been subjected to verbal abuse and harassment as a result. It is not clear whether legal advice was later received.
The resident sought an update in July 2020 as she wished to know what the landlord would do to resolve the situation. The resident advised that:
1. since moving to the property there had not been one day where the visitor bay outside her neighbour’s property was free, and she considered that this was unfair use of the space.
2. given the situation, she was considering selling her share of the property. The resident asked if someone from the relevant team could contact her so that she could understand the process of selling a shared ownership property.
3. she had first flagged the issue in 2018 shortly after moving into the property, and that the lack of action in marking the bays meant that her neighbours had “claimed” the visitor bay outside their property.
The evidence which is available shows that internal discussions took place at the landlord during July 2020, and staff were trying to ascertain what options were available to resolve the issue.
Meanwhile, in August 2020, the resident sent the manager photographs of parking within the car park which she said supported the complaints she made, and demonstrated that the visitor bays were not being used correctly by her neighbours. The resident asked that that the landlord write to the neighbours directly, and not to all residents, so that the issue could be addressed.
In September 2020, the landlord made enquiries with the management company for the development (Company A). It explained that it had been made aware that the visitor bays within the development remained with the estate landowner – and it therefore understood that the bays were the management company’s responsibility. The landlord explained the situation, and asked if Company A could confirm what its strategy was for parking across the wider estate.
The landlord chased a response in October 2020, and Company A subsequently confirmed that the visitors bay could be used for 23 hours at a time. It added that if the landlord felt that they were being misused by other residents, it could provide details of the vehicle, including a picture and the address of the vehicle owner. It added that it could then write to the resident directly regarding this. The landlord replied the next day and advised that it was unable to provide photographs or vehicle details; however, it welcomed Company A’s input on how it could have a “more controlled parking facility” given that previous reminders about the use of the visitors’ bays had not been effective.
The resident sought an update from the landlord in November 2020. As she did not receive a response, she contacted this Service for assistance. We informed the landlord of the resident’s concerns, and asked it to issue a stage one complaint response. The evidence suggests that the landlord sought clarification from the resident about her concerns, and the resident also raised the issue of noise transference between her property and her neighbour’s. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident with a stage one response on 7 December. Within this, it said:
1. Following its investigation, it was satisfied that there was not a failure in the service it had provided; and that its actions were “justified and proportionate”.
2. It was disappointed to hear that there had been issues relating to parking, and in order to try to prevent mis-use of the visitors bays, it had referred to Company A.
3. The manager who the resident had been liaising with had suggested the solution of painting “T”s on the boundary of the bays and marking a “V” on the bays intended for visitor use. It believed that this was the most appropriate solution to serve the development.
4. It had since been advised that these markings had been part of the parking layout as originally planned by the builder. It was sorry that this had not been completed previously, and had fed back to its team in development to ensure that the works were not missed in the future.
5. If parking continued to be an issue for residents within the estate, it could suggest to Company A that a parking enforcement company was employed to “police” the use of the bays.
6. The resident should continue to inform it of any misuse of the bays, and if would contact Company A to review further.
7. It was sorry to hear that there had been incidences of noise disturbance from the resident’s neighbour. In cases such as these, it encouraged residents to speak to each other to allow for positive neighbourly communication.
8. If the resident did not feel that she could approach her neighbour, it was happy to speak with them in the first instance. It was of the understanding that the manager had already spoken with the resident’s neighbour and they were aware of the noise disturbance. It hoped that this resolved the problems the resident had been experiencing.
9. If the noise disturbance continued, and the resident believed that the level of noise was intentional or due to lifestyle, the resident could report the instances to Environmental Health who could investigate further.
10. If the resident believed that the noise was owing to a build defect, the resident could claim on the build warranty. The resident’s solicitor should have provided information relating to this; however, it could forward this if the resident did not have a copy.
11. The manager had tried to arrange a survey so that the possibility of a build defect could be explored further; however, it was aware that the visit had yet to take place as only emergency visits were being prioritised owing to Covid-19.
The landlord concluded by explaining that the resident had the right to escalate her complaint if she was unhappy with the response she had received.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 13 December. She said:
1. The parking issue had been ongoing since April 2018. At that time, she had been advised that the bays would be marked out, but this had not happened. She wished to know when the visitors bay would be marked.
2. Given the concerns she had raised previously about ASB from her neighbours, she found it “short sighted and dismissive” that the landlord had suggested that an amicable solution be sought.
3. That her neighbours were continuing to use the visitors bay as if it were their own continued to be unresolved, and she wished to know how the situation would be monitored.
4. She had also enquired about soundproofing within the property, and while it was suggested that this would be looked in to, no timescale had been provided.
5. She was of the opinion that the landlord’s handling of the situation had contributed to the position she was in, and support in resolving the parking issues was something that she had asked for support with for some time.
On 20 December 2020, the resident wrote to the manager to advise how she was being impacted by noise emanating from her neighbour’s property. The resident explained that it was not the volume, but rather the bass of the surround sound. The resident also advised that she had tried to discuss this with the neighbours, and was met with intimidation instead. The neighbour had also informed her that they were aware that she had raised the complaint in relation to parking, and that as a result he would park his car “permanently in the visitor bay” outside her home as there was nothing that she could do about it. The resident asked if this could be forwarded to the member of staff dealing with her stage two complaint. She added that the intimidation she had faced only escalated when she tried to talk with her neighbours amicably about the issues.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 22 January 2021. Within this, it said:
1. It had reviewed the correspondence and communication relating to the stage one complaint, and the legal documentation relating to the transfer of the development. It had also noted that as a result of the parking issues, the resident felt that her relationship with her neighbours had deteriorated, and she was now experiencing ASB from them.
2. The resident was correct that the bays should have been marked out previously. It was speaking with the property manager for the development about how best it could progress the matter to completion.
3. As the resident was aware, each household had two demised bays as part of the lease. It may need to engage other residents about this process, as well as seeking legal advice as to whether it can be enforced once the properties were sold.
4. The resident had been made aware that it did not own the visitor bays and that they had been retained by Company A on behalf of the freeholder. It therefore did not have the authority to enforce the use of the bays. The manger had been in touch with Company A, however, to see what options may be available to address the resident’s concerns.
5. From what the resident had said, it did appear that her neighbours were in contravention of the clause relating to parking under the lease. The manger would be sharing the resident’s photographic evidence with Company A for it to consider. However, it wished to inform the resident that while it could share her concerns, it was unable to influence what action Company A took as a result.
6. It would raise the rules of the development with the resident’s neighbour and remind them of the consequences of any breaches of their lease agreement.
7. It was sorry to hear that the resident had experienced ASB as a result and wished to offer the support from its team to try to help the resident resolve the dispute. It confirmed that staff would be in touch to discuss what it could do to help.
The landlord summarised its findings and said that the complaint had been upheld. It said that while it was unable to enforce the use of the visitor bays, it would continue to encourage Company A to put measures in place to avoid conflict in future over their use. It would also work with the resident in relation to the ASB allegations so that she could be provided with the right level of advice. It added that a surveyor would also be visiting the property on 3 March to look at the issue of soundproofing. The landlord explained that the consideration of the complaint had come to an end, but that the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the actions it would be taking following its investigation of her complaint. It said:
1. The resident should inform the manager if parking continued to be abused, and he would follow this up with Company A. It was unable to influence what action Company A would take, but it would update the resident with any feedback that was received.
2. It would be sending the resident’s neighbour a reminder of the parking arrangements in the next week, and it would confirm once this had been sent.
3. The manager would be obtaining quotes for the cost of marking up the bays.
4. The soundproofing visit had been booked for 3 March. If there were any changes to the appointment, it would notify her as soon as possible.
5. With regards to the ASB, the resident should “avoid contact where possible”. If the issues with the neighbour became criminal – e,g. harassment or threatening behaviour, the resident should let the manager know so that it could “follow up with the police for any support” it could provide.
6. It would update the resident further on 19 February.
In May 2021, the resident contacted this Service again. She advised that the landlord had failed to take action in line with its assurances, and she therefore wished for us to investigate her concerns. We discussed the matter with the resident in April 2022 prior to starting our investigation and she confirmed that:
1. the bays were still unmarked. The landlord had advised that it would not be painting the markings as previously advised owing to budget constraints.
2. She was continuing to experience ASB, and found one of her neighbours particularly intimidating.
3. A counter allegation had been made by her neighbour in February 2022, and the landlord had informed her that it was investigating the matter. The resident said that she had not been informed of the outcome, and the situation was “hanging over” her.
4. She no longer wished to remain at the property and wished to know if the landlord could support her with a move.

Assessment and findings

The visitor parking bays

The management of the car park, with the exception of the visitor bays, is the landlord’s responsibility. However, the lease agreement does not place any specific obligations on the landlord in respect of the car park’s management.
As detailed above, when the resident first queried the status of the visitor bays in April 2018, the landlord acknowledged that the bays should have been marked when the development was completed. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that this had not taken place, it did not take any steps to try to rectify the situation at that time. This was inappropriate, and the evidence demonstrates that the landlord’s failure to take action in 2018 has resulted in residents and/or their visitors misusing the bays for a prolonged period.
After the matter was raised again in 2020, the landlord provided an assurance that it would take action to stop the misuse of the bays. While it was appropriate for the landlord to write to all residents and confirm how the bays should be used, no steps were taken to mark the visitor bays and given the absence of any enforcement, the bays continued to be misused.
Internal correspondence at the landlord between June and July 2020 shows that the manager had appropriately sought legal advice about what it was able to do in such a situation; however, it is not clear if a response was received. It is also noted that staff had been tasked with obtaining quotes for painting the bays, and that they had also discussed the possibility of obtaining small signs that could be placed near the visitors bays as opposed to marking the bays. While these were appropriate steps to take at the time, the evidence which has been provided to the Ombudsman does not show that any subsequent action was taken.
After the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in 2021, it once again provided an assurance that steps were being taken towards marking the visitor bays, but this has yet to take place. While the lease is silent with regards to the landlord’s obligations in relation to the car park, it had acknowledged that the bays should have been marked in 2018 when the development was completed, and had subsequently confirmed that something would be done. That the situation is yet to be resolved is a significant failing.
With regards to enforcement action, the landlord did make enquiries with Company A, which was appropriate in the circumstances given the ownership of the visitor bays. However, it is not clear what was agreed between the landlord and Company A, or if confirmation was received about what enforcement action could be taken by Company A as this was not followed up by the landlord. This was a further failing by the landlord. It should reasonably take steps now to provide confirmation to the resident about what action Company A may be able to take in the event of misuse of the visitor bays, and to confirm whether – or how – it may assist Company A with any investigations.
Before the matter was referred to this Service, the landlord provided the resident with a number of assurances in February 2021, and confirmed the actions it would be taking to try to resolve her concerns. The landlord failed to update the resident further on 19 February as agreed, and there is no evidence that it took steps in line with the actions it had outlined. When the resident then attempted to contact the manager in July 2021, she received an automated message that he had left and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord communicated further with the resident in relation to the matter. This was inappropriate. The landlord was aware that the situation had yet to be resolved, and that it was having a significant impact on the resident. Its failure to follow up as agreed, or to continue to monitor the situation was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to try to put things right. The landlord should now apologise to the resident for these further failings, and should ensure that appropriate action is now taken.
As detailed above, in April 2022, the resident informed this Service that the landlord has since advised that it will not be painting the bays. The landlord has not informed us of its latest position; however, given the above, it would be inappropriate for the landlord not to take any action in relation to the bays and the parking situation within the development. If the landlord cannot paint the bays for financial reasons, it would be reasonable to explore other options such as affixing temporary signs – as had been discussed in July 2020. Given that the bays should have been marked in 2018, the landlord should take some action now to ensure that other residents and/or their visitors do not continue to misuse the bays.

Antisocial behaviour

The resident has explained that the situation in relation to the parking outside her property has been the cause of tension between her and her neighbours. The resident has also expressed her opinion that the animosity could have been avoided if the landlord had taken appropriate action back in 2018.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s obligations in relation to resolving and tackling ASB are quite different with shared owners, in comparison to tenants. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord provided the resident with appropriate support or signposted her to agencies who may have been able to provide support or practical assistance. Within the stage two response to the complaint, the landlord advised that it would be in touch to confirm what support it was able to provide in relation to the ASB. When the landlord did subsequently write to the resident in February 2021, it simply advised her to continue reporting any instances of ASB to the manager. The manager left the organisation soon after, and when the resident queried what she should do with another member of staff, the landlord failed to respond. This was poor handling by the landlord, and has understandably left the resident feeling unsupported.
The resident has also explained that earlier in 2022, she was contacted in relation to a counter allegation that had been made, and she has yet to learn the outcome of the landlord’s investigation. While it is acknowledged that some elements of the landlord’s investigation may be confidential, it would be reasonable for it to confirm with the resident whether it intends to take any further action or if the matter has been closed.
In relation to noise transference, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the property to be inspected so that any building defects could be ruled out. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service whether the inspection went ahead on 3 March, and if so, what the outcome of the inspection was. However, the landlord should ensure that any findings are communicated to the resident if it has not done so already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the misuse of parking bays.
2. Reports of noise nuisance and ASB.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate action to resolve the situation with regards to the misuse of parking bays. The landlord was made aware in 2018 that the visitor bays had not been marked, and despite providing the resident with assurances that it would arrange for this to take place, the matter remains outstanding.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord acted appropriately in relation to the resident’s ASB concerns, and its handling of the matter has left the resident feeling unsupported. The landlord appropriately arranged for the property to be inspected given the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance and transference, however, it is not clear if the inspection went ahead as planned, or what the outcome of the inspection was.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the misuse of parking bays.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance and ASB.
Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to confirm:
1. What action it will be taking regarding the visitor bays. If painting is not possible within this financial year, it should advise what action it will be taking in the interim – for example, if temporary signs will be erected highlighting the visitor bays. The landlord should provide a timeframe for any action it proposes to take.
2. The details of a designated member of staff who she may report instances of ASB to.
3. The details of agencies and organisations who may be able to provide her with support and further assistance to deal with the ASB she has experienced.
4. Its process in relation to shared ownership sales, and whether it is able to assist with the process.
5. Its position regarding the sound proofing of the property, if this has not been communicated since March 2021.