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

Abri Group Limited (202325242)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325242

Abri Group Limited

29 April 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a 1st floor flat. He has lived there since 2018. The property is part of an Independent Living Scheme.
  2. On 3 July 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block and confirmed that all of the parking in the car park was on a first come first served basis. It said that none of the parking bays were allocated. The resident made a complaint on 11 July 2023. He said that when he moved in it, parking was permitted for 1 car per household. His partner had sold their car on this basis. He said that new neighbours, who had not yet moved in, had 2 cars and were using 2 parking spaces.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 25 July 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It issued 2 parking permits to each household. This had not changed. Visitors were allowed to use these permits.
    2. The new neighbour’s tenancy had begun 2 months before they moved into the property. As they had a current tenancy, they could use their parking permits.
    3. The complaint was not upheld.
  4. The resident’s daughter asked for the complaint to be escalated on 22 August 2023. She said that she had been unable to park. She also said that when signing up for the property, her father had been told it was 1 permit per household and 1 visitor’s permit.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It apologised for the lack of visitor parking.
    2. The number of permits issued to each household had not changed.
    3. Parking had always been and still was on a first come, first served basis.
    4. The neighbours had a current tenancy and were therefore entitled to park in the car park prior to moving in.
    5. It apologised for the delay in responding. It offered £100 compensation for this.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us on 22 October 2023. He said as follows:
    1. Neighbours had parked 2 cars in the car park before moving in. This had caused him “stress” as he had been unable to park his car outside his property.
    2. The landlord should only allow 1 carpark permit and 1 visitor permit per household.
  7. On 7 June 2024 the landlord re-reviewed the matter following our involvement. It said as follows:
    1. Its standard of communication with the resident had not been of the standard it would expect.
    2. It could have taken steps to review possible options to address the availability of parking. It also could have also addressed parking enforcement.
    3. The parking in the car park was enforced by a separate company. These enforcement visits would be increased. It had asked the enforcement company to provide information relating to technological solutions to parking enforcement.
    4. It would carry out a consultation with residents in regard to the parking. It would look into the possibility of allocated parking and dedicated visitor bays.
    5. In recognition of its poor communication it offered £150 compensation.
  8. Following the referral to us, the resident said that the landlord had not attended the meeting it had arranged to discuss the parking. He said he had not accepted the offer of compensation, which he said felt like a “bribe”.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns about parking

  1. We have not seen any mention of use of the communal car park in the resident’s tenancy agreement. It is not disputed that 2 parking permits are allocated by the landlord. However, the resident believes this is one permit per resident and one permit for a visitor, not 2 per household. We are not able to tell a landlord how to distribute parking permits. Nor can we determine what the resident was told about the permits on moving in in 2018. Instead, our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and if its responses were fair and reasonable.
  2. In responding to the complaint, the landlord took on board the resident’s concerns. It explained that it had not changed the way it gave out parking permits, which was 2 per property. It explained that parking was not allocated and had always been on a first come, first served basis.
  3. It also responded to the resident’s concerns about neighbours being given parking permits and using the car park before they had moved in. It explained that as their tenancy had started, they were permitted to use their 2 parking permits to park in the car park, despite not having moved into their property.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were appropriate and addressed the resident’s specific concerns about the parking permits. As such there was no maladministration.
  5. It is noted that following our involvement, the landlord conducted a further review as it noted the parking issues could impact all residents of the block. It said its communication could have been clearer. It also noted it could have taken further steps to address the parking issues. It set out the steps it had subsequently taken in respect of the car park and its involvement with an independent parking enforcement company. It offered compensation to the resident to acknowledge that its communication could have been clearer.
  6. This review by the landlord does not form part of our investigation as we have not identified any failures with the landlord’s handling of the matter or its communication during its internal complaints procedure. However, we do encourage landlords to continue to try to resolve matters for residents if they remain dissatisfied. Such ongoing commitment to do so was positive to see. As such, we have made a recommendation that the landlord re-offer the £150 it offered to the resident during this subsequent consideration of the matter. We have also recommended it arrange a meeting with residents of the block to discuss the parking.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. This says at stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If it needs more time, it will let the resident know.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 11 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the following day. It responded at stage 1 on 25 July 2023. This was within its complaints policy response timeframe.
  3. The resident’s daughter escalated the complaint on the resident’s behalf on 22 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the same day. The resident chased the response on 27 September 2023. The landlord advised it was experiencing delays in responding. It provided the stage 2 response on 18 October 2023. This was 41 working days after the escalation, around double the stated timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised and offered £100 compensation. However, it did not explain the reason for the delay or steps it would take to prevent this from happening in the future. This was a missed opportunity for it to be open with the resident and to learn from its complaint handling failure.
  4. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  5. The landlord’s offer of compensation was within a range we would expect to see where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident. As such, its offer was appropriate and amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Re-offer £150 compensation which it offered following its review of the case.
    2. Re-offer £100 compensation which it offered to acknowledge the effect of its complaint handling.
    3. Arrange a meeting with residents of the block to restate its current policy on parking so as there is no ambiguity amongst those using the parking, and to advance the matters it identified in its review to continuously improve its service for all residents.