The Riverside Group Limited (202310139)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310139

The Riverside Group Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports that his parking space was being used by others and associated antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and moved into the property on 12 March 2012 with his partner and 2 dependent children. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced property on an estate of 46 properties with a mixture of properties owned by the landlord, properties owned by another housing association and private homeowners. The resident is a carer for his wife and daughter, both of whom have disabilities and the landlord has confirmed it is aware that the resident’s daughter is disabled. The resident’s parking space is located round the corner from his property on the next street, in front of another property owned by the landlord.
On 19 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for permission to install a bollard in his parking space, as other residents had been using it. This permission was granted verbally, and the bollard was installed in February 2022.
The resident has reported to this Service that throughout March 2022 and July 2022 his car had been vandalised, and the bollard had been damaged. He suspected this was done by another resident who had been parking in his space. He advised that this was reported to his housing officer in July 2022, but she was on leave. The Ombudsman has not been provided with contemporaneous notes from the landlord to show what actions were taken, or of the report itself.
On 14th December 2022, the resident reported that the bollard had been damaged, and he asked that the landlord install bollards on all parking spaces. The landlord refused this request and advised the resident to report damage to the police. During this discussion, the landlord agreed to repaint the lines and numbers onto the parking spaces, as they had faded. It informed the resident that this work would be completed in “early Spring” in the hope that weather conditions were more favourable.
The resident called the landlord on 1 March 2023 to make a complaint as the bollard had been damaged and the landlord had refused to install bollards in all the parking spaces. He said that he had installed the bollard as other people were parking in his space. He requested compensation for the damage to the bollard and made another request for the landlord to install bollards in all its parking spaces. The resident made a police report on 3 March 2023 regarding vandalism to his car and antisocial behaviour (ASB). He was given crime reference numbers for both the criminal damage and the ASB.
The complaint was acknowledged on 3 March 2023 by phone call and a summary of the call was sent to the resident on 6 March 2023. A target date of 13 March 2023 was given for a formal complaint response, and the landlord stated that the resident would be contacted for an extension if it was unable to respond within this deadline.
The landlord called the resident on 9 March 2023 to discuss damage to the bollard. The resident stated that it had been damaged on 4 occasions within 12 months. He suspected it was a neighbour causing the damage however was unable to gather evidence as his parking space was in a different area of the estate. He confirmed that the damage had been reported to police. The landlord offered to contact the neighbour however the resident declined this. He requested that the landlord install bollards across the estate however it stated that it could not do this due to budgetary constraints. It offered to consult with other residents on the introduction of a parking monitoring service. If a majority of residents supported this, it would introduce it on a trial basis.
The stage 1 response was issued on 10 March 2023 which summarised the content of the call the previous day and confirmed that the landlord would instruct the housing officer to begin consultation on introducing a parking management company. It also confirmed that some of the vehicles which were parking in spaces owned by the landlord were visitors to the local council offices which were close by. Alternative options suggested by the resident such as a parking barrier were refused by the landlord, as not all the spaces on the estate were under its ownership.
On 12 April 2023, the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process, as he had not received any correspondence relating to the consultation on parking enforcement and the parking issues had continued. There had also been further damage to the bollard. He requested compensation from the landlord as he felt it should have installed bollards in the first place, and the one he had installed had been damaged. He confirmed that the damage had been reported to police. Internal records from the landlord’s system on 13 April 2023 confirmed that an outcome of the complaint was that it would consult with other residents regarding parking enforcement.
The resident made a police report on 24 April 2023 to report further ASB and damage to the bollard, he was given another crime reference number. On 2 May 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in responding to his complaint and stated that there had been a lot of annual leave plus the Easter break which had delayed things. On 7 and 31 May 2023 the resident contacted the resident through its social media page requesting an update on his complaint. On both occasions he received a response to say a response would be chased. The resident then sent a letter to the landlord’s tenant panel requesting guidance as he had not received any response to his complaint and said that the situation was taking a toll on his disabled daughter.
The landlord sent a letter to all residents on the estate on 27 June 2023 to confirm that the lines would be repainted on 5 July 2023. It requested that they park within the lines completely or they may be asked to move.
On 4 July 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident. It stated that:
1. Due to recent changes, there was no longer an option for the case to be discussed by a tenant panel.
2. The complaint was not upheld, and the stage 1 response was comprehensive.
3. While it gave permission for the resident to install a bollard, this did not mean that the landlord took responsibility for it.
4. It recognised that the proximity of the council offices was having an impact on parking, however as the landlord was not responsible for the public highway or entire estate it could not install CCTV to monitor parking.
5. It asked the customer to contact it if he had evidence that another resident was causing the damage.
6. Compensation of £250 was offered in recognition of the delays with the stage 2 response.
The resident made police reports regarding further damage to his car and bollard on 22 and 25 August, 10 and 18 September 2023. It is not clear from the information provided whether the landlord also received these reports however on 19 September 2023 the landlord and police conducted a joint visit to the estate and spoke to some residents. The residents who were spoken with said they did not know who had caused the damage. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the parking issues and ASB and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking concerns and ASB reports

The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that no ASB case was ever raised in response to the resident’s reports as its previous policy did not define the resident’s reports as ASB. As a result, no ASB processes were followed. However, it has since stated that if it were applying its current and updated ASB policy, the case would have crossed its threshold into ASB and appropriate action would have been taken. It is positive that the landlord has recognised that its previous process may have been flawed, however the resident’s concerns were not treated appropriately at the time as a result.
The Ombudsman recognises that in order to take action on ASB, it is best practice to gather evidence in order to support the case, prior to approaching alleged perpetrators. In this situation, however, this Service understands that it has been difficult for the resident to collect any evidence. His property does not overlook his parking space, and it would be inappropriate for him to install cameras outside another resident’s property. It is unclear how any evidence can be gathered regarding the parking issues on the estate without CCTV or parking management as residents’ spaces are not always outside their property.
When the resident asked the landlord to install CCTV, it stated that it was not viable as it was “not in direct control of all the properties in the locality or the public highway.” It has however provided this Service with a map of which properties on the estate it has responsibility for, which shows that the properties on the street where the parking space is located are under the ownership and management of the landlord. Additionally, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that he approached the local council to apply for a disabled parking space, due to his daughter’s disabilities. He was informed that, as the land was privately owned, the council could not agree allocation of a disabled space. It is understandable that the resident may have been frustrated, as both the local council and the landlord had stated that they did not have responsibility for the area.
The landlord informed this Service that it completed a ‘walkabout’ of the estate in May 2023, however it is unclear what date this took place. It stated that parking attendants were discussed but ‘a majority’ of residents did not want this as they had informal agreements on use of the bays. It is unclear whether this refers to a majority of residents on the estate, or a majority of residents to whom it spoke. Regardless, this does not amount to a formal consultation to residents. There is no evidence that a specific plan was proposed to residents, for example whether permits could be shared by residents within the estate, in order to ensure they had sufficient information to make an informed decision.
In the resident’s tenancy agreement, it states that the landlord reserves the right to vary the provision of service charges where it is reasonable. This includes charging for new services or providing services where previously none were provided. In order to do so, it must notify all residents of the proposed variations, ask for comments, and then consider the feedback prior to making any changes. It has offered to begin this process to introduce parking management, however this has not been done.
In its communication with the Ombudsman, the landlord stated that it did not proceed with the consultation as it identified an interim resolution of making parking spaces more visible by repainting. However, the line repainting was raised in December 2022, which was four months prior to the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should have either made it clear to the resident that consultation would only be offered if line repainting did not make a positive impact, or it should not have offered the consultation at all. As a result, the offer of consultation to resolve the complaint was never taken forward, and the resident has not been given any explanation or feedback.
The landlord identified that the proximity of the council offices was having a negative impact on parking on the estate. It confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has not approached the council regarding the issue at any time. Given that this was a known issue, the landlord could have contacted the council to request that it remind its visitors and staff about appropriate locations for parking and ask that they refrain from parking on the estate. While this was not guaranteed to resolve the problem completely, it may have led to an improvement.
We expect landlords to have due regard for their duties under the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate either directly or indirectly against residents. The landlord was aware of the resident’s daughter’s physical and mental health conditions and should have considered whether she was disabled within the meaning of the Act. If it determined that she was, reasonable adjustments should have been considered. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the possibility of disabled spaces within the estate, nor did it consider the impact that the parking issues would have on the resident’s family given their complex needs. Furthermore, the resident has stated to this Service that he has informed the landlord that the issues were causing his daughter distress, and this was not acknowledged throughout the complaints process, or in any other communication with the resident. While the resident may not have specifically requested a disabled space from the landlord directly, it should have considered whether it was an option when looking at how it could resolve the complaint, such as allocating an alternative space, or discussing with the other housing association whether one of its spaces could be used.
The landlord’s position that it was not responsible for the bollard was a reasonable one, as it was an improvement requested and installed by the resident, rather than an aid or adaptation completed by the landlord. In the terms of the tenancy, some ‘qualifying improvements’ can be reimbursed however works to an external parking space are not classed as qualifying improvements. While residents who hold assured tenancies have the right to improve their home with permission from the landlord, the ongoing maintenance and repair of these improvements are the responsibility of the resident. It is understandable that the resident may find this unfair particularly as the damage was not caused by him, however the decision is compliant with the terms of the tenancy.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking issues, and ASB reports. There was no consideration given to the effect on the resident’s family given their vulnerabilities, no evidence that due regard was given to obligations under the Equality Act 2010, and the proposed resolution of consultation for the introduction of parking enforcement was not completed. It acknowledged that the proximity of the council offices was having a negative effect, however there is no evidence that any action was taken to attempt to resolve this. There is also no evidence that any alternative options were explored that may have alleviated the situation.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it states that it will respond to the complainant within 10 working days and at stage 2, in 20 working days. Residents who are unhappy with the stage 2 response are directed to the Housing Ombudsman Service for assistance. At the time of the resident’s complaint, there was also an option for complainants to escalate to a ‘tenants and residents complaint panel’ at stage 2 of the process. It is unclear when this policy changed, as the policy provided to the Ombudsman by the landlord confirms the option of a tenant panel. The current policy on the landlord’s website which came into use in October 2023 no longer has the option of a tenant panel.
At stage 1, the landlord responded within the agreed timescales and responded in an appropriate format. Its proposal to consult other residents regarding a parking enforcement company was reasonable, as was the decision to repaint the lines in the parking bays.
Following the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, communication was poor, and the resident felt that he had to pursue alternative contact methods such as utilising social media to get an update. The responses that the resident received through private messages with the landlord’s social media account were not specific to his case, aside from confirming the complaint was at stage 2. Callbacks were promised within 48 hours, and this was not met.
The landlord did offer compensation of £250 for the delay in responding at stage 2 and apologised for the resident having to chase for the response. However, there was no explanation for the delay, or indication that any learning had been taken from the situation. While there may be times when it is not possible to respond to residents within the set timescale, landlords should always maintain communication with residents and agree an extension where possible. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the landlord to review its processes in cases where there are delays with responding to residents.
The Service acknowledges that the resident felt that the complaint handling failures amounted to a breach of his tenancy, particularly the landlord’s failure to provide copies of the policy when asked. This Service does not dispute that the complaint handling had a negative effect on the resident and his relationship with the landlord, however failures in complaint handling are not considered to be a breach of tenancy as stated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures. The level of compensation offered was in line with its policy, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion it appropriately recognised the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking issues and ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it managed the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to confirm whether the parking issues are ongoing. If they are, it should:
  1. Consider whether it is appropriate to open an ASB case and advise the resident what evidence it will consider given the difficulties owing to the location of the parking space.
  2. Contact the local council office which neighbours the estate, and request that clear messaging is provided to guests to ask them to avoid parking on the estate. A copy of this must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
  3. Begin consultation with residents regarding the introduction of a parking management company. A copy of this must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
  4. Assess whether the resident can be allocated a disabled parking space, and confirm to him in writing the outcome, with an explanation for its decision. A copy of this must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
  5. Assess whether CCTV can be installed in the street where the resident’s allocated parking space is, given that it manages all properties in that area. It should then provide the resident with a decision in writing, with an explanation for its decision. A copy of this must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
  6. Consider any other options to manage or improve the situation, including looking at the allocation of an alternative space, and discussing the issues with the other housing association. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of this communication and an explanation for its decisions regarding alternative options to demonstrate compliance with this order.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £500 compensation comprising of:
1. £250 in recognition of its failure to consider the household vulnerabilities.
2. £250 in recognition of its failure to complete the resolution offered during the complaints process, namely the consultation on a parking monitoring service.
3. This compensation is in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord for its complaint handling delays. If that has not already been paid, this must be paid to the resident within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should review its complaint handling and set out an action plan to ensure:
1. it has clear guidance for staff on touch points for contact with residents throughout the complaints process.
2. where issues in complaint handling are highlighted, it feeds back any learning from the case to the resident.
3. residents who chase updates via social media are given realistic timeframes, rather than standardised responses, to manage expectations.
4. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s principles of dispute resolution Principles of Dispute Resolution – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The action plan should be provided to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.