Hyde Housing Association Limited (202330473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330473

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a car parking space.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 2 May 2023. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat. The resident has no known vulnerabilities and lives with her son who has autism, which the landlord is aware of.
On 26 September 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about it not allocating her a space in the car park that was being built outside the flats. The resident said:
1. The landlord confirmed she could have a parking bay when this was ready, but later said she could not have the bay as this was not for her flat. The landlord recommended she apply to the council for a property with a parking space.
2. No one contacted her when she disputed that the landlord had not given her a parking space.
3. She would not have agreed to the tenancy without a parking space due to her son having severe special needs.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident and issued a complaint acknowledgement letter that:
1. Apologised that the resident had to repeatedly chase updates and acknowledged the frustration caused.
2. Noted that the resident said it had allocated her a parking space while she was in the process of accepting the tenancy, which was in a car park that it had not finished building.
3. Acknowledged that the resident said it was ‘imperative’ she had a parking space due to her son being disabled and having a blue badge and mobility car. It noted that the resident said she had been advised to relocate but the local authority could not assist and relocating would disrupt her son’s routine due to being severely autistic.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023, in which it:
1. Said the resident completed a housing application on 14 February 2023 on which she indicated she was moving in with her son and did not need a parking space.
2. Said the resident signed the tenancy, which stated no parking allocated.
3. Said the resident asked about parking in May 2023 and it said it had allocated her a bay, but this was in error due to being mixed up with another property.
4. Said it had checked for available parking, but it had no space left to allocate.
5. Recommended the resident contact the local authority to ask if it could help.
6. Explained it had learned from this by undertaking actions to get better at responding accurately to customers.
7. Offered £150 compensation, comprised of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for the resident’s effort.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 4 October 2023. In summary, the resident said:
1. The landlord told her it had allocated her a parking space when it handed her the keys on the day of moving, which was ‘crucial’ in her decision to accept the property.
2. Her housing application said she was moving with her son who has severe autism and mobility needs.
3. At no point during the application did she state that she did not require a parking space. She said she informed the relevant authorities of her son’s requirements, which made it essential to access a car for mobility.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 November 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said it would not change its decision due to considering the information provided, its policies and procedures, and the resident not providing any new information.
2. Explained it had issued its stage 1 response based on the tenancy agreement and the resident’s housing application not indicating that she needed a parking space. It said the resident signed the tenancy on 2 May 2023 and emailed on 9 May 2023 to confirm whether she had parking, at which point the landlord made a mistake and incorrectly told the resident that she had parking.
3. Apologised for its error and acknowledged that this did not alleviate the stress caused.
4. Said its property management team confirmed it had no available parking to give the resident.
5. Explained that the resident could contact the local authority if she needed a disabled bay.
6. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 November 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 9 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s parking permit agreement states only residents living on an estate can apply for a parking permit for that estate. It says there are a very small number of parking spaces specifically for the disabled, which may only be used by disabled residents and their carer/s. Once it has allocated all parking spaces, the landlord places residents on a waiting list.
The landlord has a 2–stage complaint process. At stage 1, it will contact the resident within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, its ‘review’ stage, it will respond within 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a car parking space

The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident complained about the landlord not allocating her a car parking space. The resident highlighted the importance of having a parking space to meet her son’s needs. She said the landlord confirmed it had allocated her a parking space when it handed her the keys on the day of moving. She said she would not have agreed to the tenancy without a parking space due to her son having severe special needs.
The resident completed a housing application on 14 February 2023, which asked if anyone in the household had ‘any physical or mental health conditions or illness lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more’. The resident answered yes to this question. She said her son had autism and needed a property to suit his needs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider any parking request during the application process.
We do not doubt the resident’s account that she requested a parking space before moving into the property. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
The first evidence of a request for parking is an email from the landlord dated 9 May 2023, the email in which it incorrectly told the resident that it had allocated her a parking bay. The resident had previously signed her tenancy with the landlord on 2 May 2023, which stated, ‘No allocated parking’. By signing the tenancy, the resident agreed to its terms, however, the landlord made an error when informing the resident that it had allocated her a parking space and this likely prompted her to log a complaint.
When investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord reviewed her housing application to check for any record of a request for parking. It also checked whether it could provide her with a parking space, but it did not have any available and informed the resident of this in its stage 1 response. Although this was not the response the resident was seeking, we consider that the landlord acted appropriately to review her housing application and check its parking allocations before issuing its response.
The landlord suggested in its stage 1 response that the resident ask the local authority about applying for a disabled bay. The provision of a disabled bay would be at the council’s discretion and separate from any landlord provision. Due to the landlord not having a parking space available, we consider it was reasonable for it to suggest an alternative way for the resident to try to obtain a parking space to meet her son’s needs.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its process. It should have issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request on 4 October 2023 but it did not reply until 28 November 2023, which was 39 working days later. The delay of 19 working days will have likely frustrated the resident and caused further inconvenience. Our 2024 special investigation into the landlord recommended improvements to its complaint handling. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order on this matter.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £150 compensation to acknowledge the resident’s efforts in contacting it as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount offered falls in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord acknowledged and identified its failings in this case. Furthermore, it took the following steps to ‘put things right’ by:
1. Offering an appropriate level of compensation.
2. Apologising where it was appropriate to do so.
3. Providing explanations for what happened.
Therefore, this investigation considers that, while the landlord’s handling of the situation could been better, it recognised the impact on the resident and took proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a car parking space.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £150 compensation offered to the resident if it has not already done so.