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

Notting Hill Genesis (202333114)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333114

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 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 landlords:
    1. Decision to withdraw the resident’s access to on-site parking.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
    3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord since 6 March 2017. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident has told both the landlord and the Service that when she viewed the property she was told the tenancy included access to an allocated parking space in the building’s on-site car park. She said she accepted the property based on that information.
  3. From 2017 until December 2022 the resident was able to obtain a parking permit for the on-site car park. In December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident advising the parking space she had been using until then was actually for disabled parking only. It said she could still use an alternative space in the on-site car park on a temporary licence that it would review yearly.
  4. In October 2023, the landlord then told the resident it had a waiting list for blue badge holders needing access to on-site parking, as well as some commercial tenants. Because of this, it said it could no longer offer her on-site parking. It explained that her tenancy agreement did not include a “right to park”. However, it offered her parking in an off-site car park within walking distance of her property.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 October 2023. She said the off-site parking space was unsuitable due to her anxiety. She felt it would be unsafe for her to walk between her property and the off-site car park, particularly at night.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 October 2023. It repeated its explanations about why it could no longer offer the resident on-site parking and the alternative option of parking in a local off-site car park instead.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 October 2023. She said the landlord had told her she had an allocated on-site parking space when she viewed the property and that it had allowed her access to this for several years. She said her on-site parking space was only changed to a temporary arrangement when the landlord moved her to an alternative space in December 2022. She asked it to reinstate her access to the on-site parking, or alternatively, move her to a different property.
  8. The landlord responded on 12 December 2023. It maintained its stage 1 response. It said it could find no evidence of ever promising on-site parking. Nonetheless, it acknowledged her frustration and offered her £50 compensation, as well as a further £50 for complaint delays. It said she could apply for a house transfer but based on the information she had already provided it would be unlikely her application would be accepted. It told her she could bring her complaint to the Service if she remained unhappy.
  9. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord’s offer of an off-site parking space was not suitable and had caused her significant stress. She reiterated that she wanted it to reinstate her on-site parking or move her to an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident said the parking issues had impacted her mental health and caused her significant stress. Although we can consider the general distress and inconvenience of the situation on the resident, we cannot assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. That is a legal process, and the resident should seek legal advice if she wants to pursue the option.

The decision to withdraw the resident’s access to on-site parking

  1. The landlord’s parking policy says where parking spaces are limited it will prioritise spaces to residents who are disabled and/or have a blue badge. It will put in place a waiting list if demand for parking outweighs availability. It will not “de-allocate” a space if it has already been allocated to a resident.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not state she has a right to any parking as part of her tenancy with the landlord.
  3. The resident’s complaint to the landlord was that she had been parking in a specified space for over 5 years without any problems. She said when she viewed the property she was told the tenancy included access to the one one-site parking space. She said it had allowed her to purchase a parking permit for the on-site car park, which she believed proved it had allocated her a space. She said it had only moved her onto a temporary licence agreement in October 2022, and it was unfair for it to now use the terms of that agreement to withdraw her on-site parking access. She also complained that when she viewed the property in 2017 the landlord told her she would have on-site parking as part of her tenancy.
  4. In response the landlord said there was no evidence it had told the resident on-site parking was included in her tenancy, or that she was entitled to parking in general. It explained its parking policy in support of its decisions to change her access. Nonetheless, it recognised that the issue had caused the resident inconvenience and offered her an alternative parking space within walking distance of her property.
  5. The landlord’s response that it had never promised the resident an on-site car parking space when she viewed the property was reasonable. The resident had said she had been verbally told this by the officer who showed her the property, but no evidence had been provided to support this. Furthermore in its responses, the landlord was able to show the details of the properties listing from when the resident viewed the property that showed parking was not included.
  6. The landlord’s explanations and actions were in line with its parking policies. The evidence shows that when the resident agreed to move to an alternative on-site parking space in December 2022, she was made aware this would be on a temporary licence agreement. The licence allowed the landlord to review her right to parking annually and make changes if necessary. It therefore was within its rights to withdraw her on-site parking access in October 2023. It did so on the basis that it had a waiting list of residents with blue badges needing access to the on-site car park. This complied with its parking policy, which states it will prioritise offering parking to these residents.
  7. The landlord’s response was further supported by the resident’s tenancy agreement, which lists her entitlements and does not include parking. No evidence was provided showing she had been informed otherwise. While the resident had been able to benefit from permits for the on-site car park for several years, that did not convey an actual entitlement.
  8. The landlord’s policy is to not remove allocated parking spaces from residents. The resident’s view that she had been allocated a space by virtue of parking in one for several years is understandable. Conversely, the landlord’s explanation that her tenancy did not give her an entitlement to parking, and therefore she had not been formally allocated one is supported by the evidence. The grounds on which it changed her parking access was in line with its policy. Accordingly, its decisions and explanations were reasonable.
  9. The landlord recognised that removing the resident’s on-site access she had used for so long would be inconvenient and frustrating. It therefore offered her an alternative parking option. Its offer was appropriate in the circumstances, and demonstrated customer focus as, by the terms of the tenancy, the landlord was not obligated to provide any parking at all..
  10. It is clear from her complaint how much frustration and distress the change in her parking access caused the resident. Nonetheless, the landlord’s decisions and actions, and its responses to her complaint were in line with its policies, and the evidence and information it had. Because of that there were no failings in its handling of the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a housing transfer

  1. The landlord’s transfer policy says if a resident wishes to apply for a transfer they need to complete both its transfer application form and medical self-assessment form. It also says it also must provide applicants with a copy of its moving options booklet. It says completed applications will be reviewed by its transfer application board, who can either approve or deny an application.
  2. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint she said she wanted the landlord to offer her a transfer if it could not reinstate her on-site parking. In response, it said she could apply for a transfer and included the relevant paperwork she needed to complete. It went on to say that based on the information she had already provided, it was unlikely her application would be accepted.
  3. The landlord’s response was appropriate as it complied with its transfer policy. It clearly explained that she could apply for a transfer and how to start an application. It provided her with a transfer application form. The evidence shows in the following months it also supported the resident with completing the other forms and collated relevant documents for her application. This was in line with its policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from receipt. For stage 2 complaints it says it will respond within 20 working days from receipt. At both stages it says it can extend its response deadline by a further 10 working days, providing it agrees this with the resident.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in 33 working days. There is no evidence to show it communicated with her during this time to explain the delays, or that it agreed a 10 working day extension. This was counter to its complaint policy.
  3. Nevertheless, it recognised its response was over the 20 working day timescale set out in its policy and apologised, which was appropriate. It also offered her £50 compensation for the delays. This was reasonable given the level of failure identified and was also in line with its compensation policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Decision to withdraw the resident’s access to on-site parking.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.