Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

MHS Homes Ltd (202331312)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331312

MHS Homes Ltd

4 June 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:
    1. Reports of parking issues in her development and her request for her parking space to be marked.
    2. Request for improved accessibility of the path to her utility meters.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a charitable housing association. The property is a 2-bed ground floor flat, and she lives with her partner and children. The tenancy started on 4 July 2022, via mutual exchange. The resident has mobility issues and there are other household health issues noted on file.
  2. On 9 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for information about her parking bay. She said she understood that she had an allocated parking spot outside her bedroom window, but other people often parked there. She asked for clarification about her parking bay, and for further information regarding the parking rules.
  3. She called the landlord on 22 September 2022 to chase this up, as she said she had mobility issues, and could rarely find a free parking bay. The landlord’s client record management notes show that the resident emailed the landlord again on 13 October 2022, to which the landlord responded. We have not seen the contents of these emails.
  4. On 7 March 2023 the resident and her local councillor emailed the landlord to ask it to install a pathway to her gas meter. She said there was a grass path leading to the meter, and this was muddy and slippery. She said she needed safe access to the meter, as she had mobility issues. She asked if the landlord could install a safer walkway. She also raised the issue about her parking bay again. She said her bay was not numbered, unlike other bays in the development, so other people “always” parked there and that she had not had any update from the landlord. She asked it to contact her to discuss the issue.
  5. On 27 April 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
    1. She had moved into the property in July 2022 and had been told she had 1 allocated parking space. She had been given plans to the property, showing each parking space allocated.
    2. Her parking space had no markings (to indicate it was assigned to her) and various people parked in her space, which was causing her problems. She had contacted the landlord on 22 September 2022 and 13 October 2022 and was told it would address the issue with the developer, as the developer should have completed the markings. She then emailed again on 6 February 2023 and the landlord then visited her home on 27 March 2023, saying it was still awaiting a response from the developer.
    3. The landlord was aware of her mobility issues and allocated parking was very important to her so she could comfortably park close to her home.
    4. The communication from the landlord had been very poor and it was unacceptable that she continually had to chase it for responses, without a resolution.
  6. On 5 May 2023 she added to her complaint. She said she wanted a response to her request for a safe pathway to her utility meters.
  7. On 18 May 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said the following:
    1. It confirmed that the resident had an allocated parking space. It had asked the relevant team to complete works to the bay, showing her parking bay number. It would update the resident as soon as it had a date for the works.
    2. It apologised for its poor communication. The housing officer had done a great deal of work and consulted with various departments, which could be a lengthy process. It had identified several points of learning regarding its communication and how it could improve this in the future.
    3. It had spoken to the housing officer regarding the resident’s request for a pathway to be installed.
    4. It upheld the complaint as the resident had waited an unreasonable time regarding the landlord monitoring parking in the development. The staff member could have done more to keep the resident updated.
    5. It had requested its adaptations team to attend to survey the property to look at possible options for installing a path to her meters. It would update the resident once it had a date for its surveyor to attend.
    6. It would communicate with the resident in respect of dates for the parking bay works.
  8. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 31 August 2023. She said:
    1. The works had still not been progressed, and she was still experiencing “extremely poor” communication.
    2. She wanted the works to be dealt with promptly.
  9. On 27 September 2023, the landlord referred the resident to the local council’s occupational therapy (OT) team for an assessment. This is so the OT could assess whether the resident needed a paved pathway in order to access her utility meters.
  10. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 September 2023. It said:
    1. It upheld the complaint. The landlord had not contacted the resident to let her know that she would need an OT referral regarding the request for a paved pathway. Also, it had not updated the resident regarding the parking bay.
    2. Its estates team had confirmed they could mark out the parking bay by the end of the following week.
    3. It would need an OT report to consider the paving area, and it had completed an OT referral that day. It asked the resident to share the OT report once she had the assessment.

After the internal Complaints Procedure

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 October 2023 and 13 November 2023 to say that her parking bay had still not been marked. She said she had ongoing issues with people parking in her space. She asked if the landlord could write to residents in the block, reminding them of the parking rules.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 December 2023. She complained that her parking bay issue had not been resolved, and this was causing her stress and difficulties due to her mobility issues. She also complained that she had received no updates regarding her request to have a safe pathway installed for access to her utility meters. She said the communication with the landlord had been extremely poor.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord several times between December 2023 and April 2024 to chase the car parking works. These were completed in April 2024. The resident reported several further issues after this date, with photographic evidence (including double parking in her and adjacent to her spot).
  4. The resident sent the landlord her OT report and chased the landlord for the pathway works between April 2024 and May 2024.
  5. We called the resident on 28 May 2025. She told us that the pathway to her meters was installed around February 2025. She said, in respect to her parking bay, she still has issues with people parking in her space. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to instal a ‘resident’s allocated parking only’ sign. She would also like improved communication from the landlord and for it to identify learning from her complaint, so that relevant staff follow the landlord’s published policies.

Assessment and findings

Parking

  1. Strong record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service. The landlord’s internal records show that there was some confusion as to whether or not the resident had allocated parking. The resident was initially advised that she did not have this; however, the landlord later confirmed that she did in fact have an allocated parking space. This was after the resident sent the landlord a copy of the development parking plans. This conflicting information was a failing and caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that it will not allow vehicles to be parked anywhere other than designated parking areas. It says that when residents report a breach, it will investigate, and keep residents updated as the investigation continues. This includes agreeing timescales with residents.
  3. The resident reported people parking in her parking bay on at least 4 occasions between 9 August 2022 and 27 April 2023. There is no evidence on file that the landlord took any action in response to the resident’s reports of parking breaches on her development. This Service has not seen any communication between the landlord and other residents in the development, reminding them of their obligations in respect of parking. There is no evidence that it did anything to mitigate the parking issues. Nor has the landlord provided any evidence of inspections of the parking area after the resident reported the breaches. This is a failing which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days and planned or major works within 60 days. It says it has a duty to comply with the Equality Act 2010, along with other relevant legislation.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy awards discretionary compensation of between £25 to £500 where there has been a failure in service delivery, causing detriment to the resident.
  6. There is no dispute that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues and the resident’s request for her parking bay to be marked. It acknowledged this in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and undertook to carry out works to the resident’s parking bay. However, the landlord did not do this in a timely manner, and this is a failing. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience and impacted on the enjoyment of her home. Further, it did not offer any compensation for the significant delay. The resident reported the issues with her parking on 9 August 2022 and the landlord did not carry out works to mark her parking bay until April 2024. This is a period of 18 months, significantly outside the landlord’s 60-day policy timeframes and an inappropriate delay.
  7. The delay was further compounded by the fact that the landlord did not have correct information on file. Its records should have reflected that the development was outside of the defects period, and that it was responsible for any alterations, and not the developer. The fact that it did not, further delayed the landlord’s actions in rectifying the parking issue. This caused the resident additional frustration and time and trouble.
  8. Further, there is no evidence that it considered an interim solution before it attended to works on the parking bay, and this caused the resident additional frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  9. The delays were particularly concerning as the resident has mobility issues, of which the landlord was aware. This would have caused a significant impact on the enjoyment of her home. The landlord’s individual needs and reasonable adjustments policy states that it takes individual needs into account and will make reasonable adjustments in service delivery. It failed to consider the resident’s mobility issues and the impact on her, and this is not resident focussed. This compounded the resident’s distress and frustration.
  10. Further, it failed to communicate with the resident throughout the process and this is a failing, which caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
  11. In summary, the landlord took 18 months to complete the parking bay works. This is an unreasonable delay and significantly outside its repairs policy. It also failed to communicate and update the resident throughout the process. The delays and communication issues caused the resident distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. This also significantly impacted on the enjoyment of her home. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration, along with orders for redress. We have made an order for £500 compensation. This is £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing the parking issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Access to path

  1. The landlord’s individual needs and reasonable adjustments policy states that it can make reasonable adjustments to ensure that its services can be equally accessed by residents with disabilities, as well as those without. This may include a physical alteration to its property. The policy says that it will refer residents to statutory agencies and other external partner support agencies where appropriate.
  2. The resident requested a safe access path to her utility meters on 7 February 2023. She made the landlord aware of her mobility issues and of the difficulties she was experiencing in safely accessing her meters. This was because there was a grass path only, which was slippery and put her at risk of falls. The landlord did not complete these works until February 2025, and this is a significant delay, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
  3. Although this Service understands that the landlord would need an OT report and recommendation before it carried out the works, the landlord took too long to contact the local council’s OT services. This was a failing and caused the resident further distress. The landlord did not refer the resident for an OT assessment until its stage 2 response of 27 September 2023. This was 7 months after the resident reported the issue. This was not resident focussed and not in line with the landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy. This failing caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Had the landlord referred the resident to OT services sooner, the path may have been installed in a much more timely manner.
  4. Further, once it received the resident’s OT report in April 2024, it took another 9 months to complete the works. Although this Service understands these were major works, this is still significantly outside its 60-day timescales and a failing on the part of the landlord. The resident did not have safe access to her utility meters for a total of 18 months and this severely impacted on the enjoyment of her home. This is also not in keeping with the landlord’s individual needs and adjustments policy or the principles of the Equality Act 2010. The resident was disadvantaged for a significant amount of time.
  5. In summary, the landlord failed to refer the resident to OT services in a timely manner. It then failed to carry out the works for 10 months after it received the report. These delays caused the resident significant distress and frustration and impacted on the enjoyment of her home. As such, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress. We have awarded £400 compensation. This is £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing the issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of parking issues in her development and her request for her parking space to be marked
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for improved accessibility of the path to her utility meters.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Arrange training to all relevant staff to ensure they follow the landlord’s tenancy management policy, repairs policy, individual needs policy and complaints policy.
    3. Discuss ongoing parking issues with the resident and advise her of what actions it can take.
    4. Pay the resident £900. This should be paid into her bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable). This is made up as follows:
      1. £500 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in pursuing the car parking issues.
      2. £400 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in pursuing the accessible pathway issues.

 

  1. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.