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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202212968)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212968

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 June 2024


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:
    1. the resident’s request for reimbursement of parking fines;
    2. the resident’s concerns regarding the parking scheme.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord from 5 August 2019 until 5 November 2023 when the tenancy ended.
  2. The property was a 1-bedroom flat located on the second floor. The tenancy came with a car parking space and use of a communal garden.
  3. The resident provided supporting letters to this Service from his mother and his employer, giving health information and the impact to him on receiving parking fines. It is noted that the notice to owner seen by this Service is addressed to the resident’s mother.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident received penalty charge notices on 6 September 2019, 17 September 2019, 27 September 2019, 21 November 2019. In response, the landlord contacted the parking company on 19 December 2019, advising that due to an administrative error, the resident had been unable to display a permit and requested that they stop recovery action.
  5. Further penalty charges notices were received on 12 January 2020 by the resident’s mother. The following day, the resident informed the landlord that he had lost the parking permit. In addition, on 27 February 2020 and 19 August 2020, the resident notified the landlord that he did not have a fob to access the gated car park.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 October 2022 that he wanted a refund of the parking charges and the money he had paid to a debt recovery company. He said that he had incurred the parking fines as he had been misinformed by the officer when he had signed for the tenancy. The officer had not given him a parking permit and had told him to ignore any parking fines he received. Also, once the parking permit was granted, he did not have a fob to park in the gated car park. There were only 2 parking spaces available and the landlord had said it would not refund any further parking fines. The resident concluded by providing the details regarding the parking fines and the amount paid to the debt recovery company.
  7. The landlord provided its complaint response on 28 December 2022. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the complaint. The landlord referenced a complaint made by the resident in June 2021, advising at that time, it was able to stop the resident incurring parking charges. Since then, it had changed its management company and was not able to do this. It advised that parking was managed by the management agent who employed the parking contractor. It advised that it was unable to intervene in parking disputes and signposted the resident to the parking contractor.
  8. The landlord made a compensation award of £1,030 which was broken down as: £830 for the incorrect charges and fines that the resident had received; £100 for the poor communication, including time and trouble; £50 for the delays completing the reimbursement; and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord informed the resident that it had put things right by recommending that its property management team ensure that all new tenants were provided with parking permits and fobs at the commencement of the tenancy.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and on 10 February 2023, he escalated his complaint as he had received another fine from the debt recovery company.
  10. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 April 2023. It confirmed that it was not changing its decision as it had reimbursed the resident £830 for the fines and debt charges he had received. Also, it said it had awarded him an additional £250 compensation and the complaint was closed on that basis. It advised that his request to escalate the complaint was not related to the complaint it had investigated. The landlord signposted the resident to the parking company as the issue related to the parking fine.
  11. The courts informed the resident on 11 May 2023 that if a judgement had been issued in error, he needed to complete an application notice and pay the appropriate fee.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his concerns regarding the penalty charge notices and debt recovery and escalated his concerns to this Service.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and informed decisions to be made. There is reference to the resident having made a complaint to the landlord in June 2021 and in May 2022 but no evidence of any response or completion of the landlord’s complaints process at the time.
  1. Nevertheless, this investigation report will consider events from October 2021 until the landlord’s final complaint response on 12 April 2023. The Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and considering the available evidence. This report may include historical events for the purposes of context.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where we consider it quicker, fairer and more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of his request for reimbursement of parking fines is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as per paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.
  3. This aspect of the resident’s complaint relates to the penalty charge notices received between 6 September 2019 to 12 January 2020 which stated the resident did not have a valid permit. The penalty charge notices gave the resident appeal rights if he disagreed with the charge. From what can be seen the resident and/or his mother appealed the penalty charges notices and received decisions that the penalty charge notices were correctly issued. The resident was given information on how to progress the appeal to the independent appeal service for penalty charge notices issued on private land (POPLA) if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome of his appeal.
  4. This is the appropriate body to consider the resident’s concerns regarding whether the penalty charge notices were correctly issued. This Service has noted that the Notice to Owner issued by the parking company was not in the resident’s name. Therefore, it is appropriate for POPLA to consider all the evidence to reach a determination on whether the penalty charge notice was correctly issued albeit the landlord assisted the resident in this process through the reimbursement of the charges for the period it assessed it had not provided the resident with a valid permit.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s concerns regarding the parking scheme

  1. The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has met its obligations by following proper procedure in taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident’s tenancy came with an unallocated parking space. The landlord has an arrangement with the management agent who is responsible for the parking company. The landlord’s submission to this Service includes evidence of signage in the car parking area displaying the parking rules that residents have to comply with.
  3. The landlord records show that the induction form completed with the resident at the start of his tenancy had a tick to indicate that the parking scheme had been discussed. The landlord’s attempt to further investigate this issue was limited due to the lack of availability of the officer who had carried out the viewing. The landlord determined that it was possible that the resident was not given parking permits when he signed for the tenancy. Furthermore, between November to December 2019, it contacted the management agent on the resident’s behalf in an effort to resolve the fines he had received and stop debt recovery action. These were reasonable actions on the part of the landlord.
  4. Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident effectively did not have access to the parking area from 5 August 2019 until 5 November 2019 (until the parking permit was provided on 6 November 2019).
  5. The landlord’s submission to this Service is not clear on when the resident was first allocated a fob to enter the gated car park area. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2020 to advise that he was having difficulty accessing the area. The landlord took practical steps to assist the resident by providing him with an alternative parking area for the period that he did not have a fob. Following that, it sent the resident information about parking provision. It also informed the resident that information about parking availability was on its website and noticeboards. These were positive and practical solutions to mitigate the stress, anxiety and concerns experienced by the resident.
  6. This Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from your mistakes.
  7. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience he had experienced. It made a compensation award of £200 for the poor communication, delays and distress and inconvenience he experienced. The landlord also outlined that, in response to the complaint, it had reminded its property team that each new tenant should be given a parking permit and a fob to prevent a reoccurrence of the resident’s experience.
  8. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement (January 2021) states that it will make a compensation payment when there has been a failure in its service. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guide outlines that awards of compensation between £100 to £600 are appropriate where the landlord has recognised that there are failings in its service delivery and tried to put things right.
  9. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably in acknowledging that at the start of the tenancy, the resident had not been given the necessary parking permit and fob. It took appropriate steps to understand the charges and fines the resident had incurred and agreed to refund those for the period it had not supplied the resident with the parking permit and fob. In addition, the landlord set out how it had learnt from the complaint to improve its service delivery.
  10. Ultimately, the landlord accepted that its service provision at the start of the resident’s tenancy fell below its expected standards. It has acted appropriately by not only recognising its failures in service but also apologising to the resident and making a proportionate award of compensation. Therefore, the landlord’s response represented reasonable redress for the failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the parking scheme.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement (January 2021) states that at its first stage, it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. If it requires further time to respond, it will request that it be given a further 10 working days to do so. With regard to follow on actions that are required, it will set these out in its response, including how these will be scheduled. Complaints escalated to its final stage will be responded to within 20 working days.
  1. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) sets out that landlords should set out their understanding of the obligations of both parties and seek clarification before doing so where this is not initially clear. Also, that if an extension agreed with the resident regarding the complaint response that is likely to exceed 20 working days, this should be agreed with the resident.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 October 2022, requesting a refund of the parking charges and the amount paid to the debt recovery company. The landlord sent holding letters to the resident on 10 November 2022 and 14 November 2022. From what can be seen, the landlord kept the resident updated advising that it was unable to obtain information from the debt management company without his written consent.
  3. The landlord took 41 working days to provide its first stage response which is outside its published complaint handling targets. However, the landlord’s submission to this Service shows that it was in contact with the resident, managing agent and debt recovery company to obtain information about the charges that the resident had stated were incorrectly incurred. It is noted that the landlord’s obligations were not straightforward. Further, it likely experienced difficulty in setting out its position earlier without certainty about the parking fines that it had agreed to refund. It was reasonable for the landlord to request the necessary information it required to do so.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 February 2023 and the landlord provided its complaint response on 12 April 2023. The landlord took 42 working days to respond which is outside its published time limits of 20 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to agree an extension as outlined in its complaint procedure.
  5. The landlord’s final complaint response advised the resident that it would not consider the complaint about a more recent parking fine as it was a new issue that it had not previously considered. From what can be seen, the debt recovery company had obtained a judgement against the resident which the resident deemed to have been made in error. The court service advised the resident of the steps he could take for the matter to be reconsidered. Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with its complaint procedure which states that complaints where legal action is ongoing (or where the legal action supersedes the complaint) are excluded from its complaint process.
  6. The landlord went on to say that it had reimbursed the resident £1,080. This was broken down as a refund of the charges £830 and a further £250. While the final complaint response states that the £250 compensation award was agreed with the resident, the response does not explain why it had agreed to the increased award from £200 to £250 between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints responses. This was a shortcoming.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for reimbursement of parking fines is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress, prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint relating to the resident’s concerns about the parking scheme.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  1. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the orders to this Service.