Newlon Housing Trust (202104409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104409

Newlon Housing Trust

30 July 2021

Our approach

1. 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.
2. 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

3. The complaint is about the landlord failing to make explicit that the property did not come with allocated parking.

Background and summary of events

4. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 20 July 2020.  The property is a two-bedroom house.
5. The scheme appended to the tenancy agreement states that “There is no car parking (unless explicitly stated in writing) on this development. Residents will not be able to apply to the council for local area permits”.  There is no explicit statement in writing that there is allocated parking with the property, as part of the tenancy.
6. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure whereby the landlord aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied with the response and requests escalation of the matter, within 20 working days at stage two.  Where timescales cannot be met the landlord will inform the complainant of this.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidance on levels of compensation offers which may be made.  This includes £25 for low-level service failures and a level of between £50-£250 for service failures which had a short duration, such as a failure to reply to an email and failure to meet service standards where there was no significant impact.  Awards upwards of this are appropriate in circumstances of considerable service failure or maladministration.
8. Prior to moving into the property, on 13 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask about parking outside of the property and whether she had an allocated parking space.  The landlord did not respond to this email.
9. On 8 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord querying a text message she had recently received from it, advising she was not permitted to park in the parking bays outside of the property and asked where she was allowed to park if not outside of her home.
10. Having acknowledged the resident’s enquiry, on 20 January 2021 the landlord provided a response to her question. It advised that the property does not come with allocated parking and that this could be confirmed in the tenancy agreement.
11. In response, the resident stated she was not previously advised this and explained the impact on her not having anywhere to park, given the nature and hours of her work.  The landlord apologised if this was the case and advised that the resident could escalate the matter if she wished.
12. On 21 January 2021, the resident complained to that at no time during viewing the property or thereafter, was she advised that there was no allocated parking at the property and had she known this, she would not have accepted the tenancy.
13. The resident added that she had been parking in the bays outside of the property since she moved in as she was unaware and had assumed the numerous parking bays outside of the properties were able to be parked in.  The resident noted there were 11 bays and 10 properties and asked why one bay per property could not be allocated, explaining that not having parking caused her great concern, given the nature and pattern of her work.
14. On 5 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it was still investigating her complaint and would provide a response within ten working days.
15. On 19 February 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s email enquiry about the parking that she made prior to having moved in.  It recognised that it should have responded and apologised, offering £25 in shopping vouchers.
16. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not explained the parking arrangements to the resident but noted that it was specified in the tenancy and the scheme arrangements (including in respect of parking) were appended to the tenancy agreement
17. It explained that the bays were reserved for three-bedroom houses and there was a spare bay for contractor use. 
18. On 22 February 2021, the resident appealed the landlord’s decision in respect of her complaint; she was of the view that responsibility was not being taken by the landlord, as it had also referred in its complaints response to the advertising of the properties by another organisation.
19. While recognising the tenancy agreement explained the parking situation, the resident was dissatisfied that she had not been sent the agreement in advance of paying a deposit and rent for the property.  She stated that even if she had noticed the information at the point she signed the tenancy, it would have been too late for her to change her mind as to moving into the property.
20. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wanted to be provided with a parking space.
21. On 24 March 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. In its response the landlord advised that there were no spare parking bays, adding that the bays were a combination of having been allocated to three-bedroom houses and sold by the developer to private owners.
22. The landlord apologised again that the resident’s email had not been responded to initially, as this would have made the position on parking clear early on and that it also missed an opportunity to make the parking arrangements clear.  The landlord confirmed that changes to its sign-up processes had been made to help prevent a future occurrence and that a suggestion had been made to provide tenancy agreements in advance for potential tenants to read through.
23. It explained that it could not provide the resident with a parking space because the parking is controlled by the Local Authority and the buildings developed on the estate were subject to planning restrictions on the availability of parking. 
24. The landlord offered £100 compensation comprised of:
    1. £25 for its failure to reply to the email the resident sent enquiring about parking at the property;
    2. £25 for there being no communication regarding parking at the property prior to sign-up;
    3. £25 for the delay in sending its stage one response, and;
    4. £25 as a gesture of goodwill for the trouble the situation had caused.

Assessment and findings

25. There is no dispute that the landlord was not explicit about the allocation of parking bays and parking arrangements at the property or within the development, either at the viewing or sign-up to the property.  The landlord was not obliged to explicitly state what facilities the property had in respect of parking.  Nonetheless, the landlord was in a position to inform applicants that there was no allocated parking and that they could not apply for permits based on its agreement with the local authority regarding the development of the site. The landlord had this information and it would have been reasonably aware that parking is an important issue for many residents which they would want to be fully informed about.  The landlord provided redress for this by offering an apology, an explanation of the situation and by offering compensation of £50 (£25 for no communication and £25 as a goodwill gesture). This was in line with its compensation policy.
26. Further, the tenancy agreement specifically states that the property does not come with allocated parking unless specified in writing (which in this case it was not).  While there was the possibility that one of the parking bays outside of the property may have been allocated to the property or the bays may have been available for general use, this was not the case and has not been purported as such.
27. Although the resident has said she did not receive the tenancy agreement until she had paid the deposit, she did have the opportunity to clarify the parking situation in advance of agreeing to accept the property and pay the rent and deposit. Having not had the situation clarified, the resident agreed to accept the property anyway and there is no evidence of her attempting to further clarify the parking situation before agreeing to move into the property.
28. It is clear the resident, while hoping that the parking bays would be available for her use, was also was unsure of the parking situation, evidenced by the fact that she emailed the landlord to enquire about it.  The landlord’s non-response to the resident’s email was inappropriate and it has apologised for this service failure and offered compensation in this respect, as well as indicated it is learning from the situation and changing its processes.
29. None of this detracts from or seeks to diminish the inconvenience experienced from not having parking available close to the property – the resident needs a vehicle to get to work and her work which includes shifts, including at unsociable hours. Unfortunately, however, the fact remains that the landlord did not misrepresent the property to have parking when it did not, and the tenancy and appended scheme makes clear there is no allocated parking.
30. Due to the situation at the development, it may be advisable to make clear the situation to potential tenants, which in turn will better manage expectations and avoid disappointment, frustration and inconvenience which could be avoided. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation in this regard.
31. The landlord has explained it cannot provide the outcome the resident is seeking; to allocate her a parking space and provided an explanation as to why this is the case.  Nor can this Service order the landlord to provide the resident with a parking space which is not included as part of the tenancy and in the context of wider complications in respect of town planning and local authority rules, which are not within the remit of the Ombudsman to consider.
32. The landlord’s apology, improvement of processes and offer of compensation were appropriate and reasonable responses to the complaint, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case, including the level of compensation which was in accordance with its compensation guidance. This includes compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response, which it also recognised as a service failure. The landlord has confirmed that the resident is able to find a new property to live in.  This would undoubtedly be inconvenient, but would provide a solution to the problem of parking.
33. It is understandable that the resident is frustrated by not having available parking at or nearby a property that is surrounded by parking bays, nor be able to apply for a parking permit, however, the landlord has provided reasonable redress in respect of the complaint for the above reasons. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation for improvement, however, in light of the facts of this case, which are set out below.

Determination

34. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “at any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
35. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

36. The landlord was not obliged to specifically state that the property did not come with allocated parking or that parking was not available.
37. There was reasonable redress insofar as the landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s early enquiry about parking and offered compensation in respect of this, in accordance with its compensation policy. It has explained why it is not able to meet the resident’s request for a parking space. The landlord has looked to improving its procedures in light of the complaint and apologised for its recognised failures. 

Recommendation

38. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 offered within its complaints procedure, if it has not already done so, since the determination on this complaint is contingent on this offer.
39. The landlord is also recommended to consider amending its viewing and sign-up procedures, to proactively make clear to applicants the parking provision at a development and surrounding area.