Aster Group Limited (202234482)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234482

Aster 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the loss of his burger van.
The landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.
2. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in force during 2021/2022) stated that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period which will normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
As part of the complaint brought to this Service the resident said he sold his burger van due to the landlord’s actions against him and incurred about £3000 in losses. He informed the Ombudsman that the landlord (through its solicitors) sent him a warning letter, which left him no choice than to sell the van. This Service has seen a copy of a letter sent by the landlord’s solicitors to the resident on 23 February 2021. It warned the resident against parking his van on the estate due to complaints received by the landlord. It advised him to remove the vehicle within 14 days of the date of the letter, and that failure to do so may result in legal action against him.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will usually only investigate complaints made within six months (or extend to 12 months) of the event becoming evident. According to the evidence, the resident complained to the landlord about this matter, on 12 June 2023, during a telephone call (as part of his stage 2 complaint about the provision of a disabled parking bay). Although the landlord partially addressed the matter, at its discretion, (in its stage 2 complaint response letter dated 4 July 2023) this was not a detailed investigation of the issues raised.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the scheme (as above), the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the loss of his burger van is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the resident raised the complaint more than 2 years after the incident occurred. While the landlord explained its actions concerning the warning letter sent by its solicitors, it did not conduct a full investigation of the complaint raised by the resident.

Background and summary of events

The resident had a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord which began in May 2018. The property is described as a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord noted that the resident has physical and mental health issues. The landlord advised that it did not own parking spaces at the block, and it was being managed by a management company on behalf of the landowner.
The landlord and the resident communicated by email regarding his housing needs in November 2022. He said he needed to move to the ground floor as the property had become unsuitable. The landlord advised him that he had to apply directly to the local council if he wished to move home.
The landlord made safeguarding referrals to the local council around July or August 2023 after the complaints process had been exhausted. This was due to concerns about the resident’s mental health.

Scope of investigation

While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The resident said that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The landlord’s diversity and inclusion policy states that it will provide services and spaces which are fair and accessible.
The landlord’s complaints procedure has 2 stages (effective October 2022). It will aim to acknowledge complaints in writing within 5 working days of receipt and respond to:
1. Stage-1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage-2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord will consider discretionary compensation for a service failure it has accepted.

Summary of events

The resident asked the landlord for an allocated disabled parking bay on 16 January 2023. He said his parking space was too far from the main entrance, and this was adversely affecting his heath due to his mobility issues.
The resident chased up the request on 24 January 2023, and 26 January 2023 and queried why no one had responded to him. The landlord apologised for the delay on 26 January 2023, and it assured him that the relevant member of staff would contact him.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction regarding the lack of response to his request on 1 February 2023. The landlord apologised to him and said it did not own the car parking bays and they were being managed by another organisation. It explained that it had been liaising with the management company for guidance on how to process his request for a disabled parking bay.
The landlord and the resident discussed his preferred areas for the disabled parking bay in February 2023. The landlord passed the information to the management company. It also discussed a joint visit to the block with the management agent, as they had difficulty identifying the areas on the document provided. The landlord advised the resident of the actions it had taken.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 6 March 2023. He said it had been 2 weeks since he received an update from the landlord.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 7 March 2023 and updated him.
The resident and the landlord communicated in several emails on 8 March 2023. A summary of what they discussed is detailed below:
1. The landlord informed the resident that it had sent the document highlighting the 3 options the resident had suggested for a parking bay to the management company. It explained that there was an initial delay because the management company requested additional information.
2. The resident asked the landlord to take ownership of the matter and implement an action plan, as the delay was adversely affecting his physical and mental health.
3. The landlord agreed to provide weekly updates. It said the management company had confirmed that they would have an update by 14 March 2022.
4. The landlord asked if the resident would consent to a referral to occupational therapy (OT), due to the impact his living conditions were having on his wellbeing. The resident agreed.
The landlord provided a copy of the resident’s OT assessment dated 22 March 2023. The occupational therapist recommended a parking bay not more than 15 metres from the entrance to the property.
The landlord chased the management company and the landowner for an update between 22 March 2023 and 24 March 2023. It highlighted the urgency of the matter due to the impact on the resident’s wellbeing.
On 28 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to move him to a more suitable property in the interim. The landlord responded that the property itself was suitable, so it would not be able use the decant process. It also said it did not have any empty properties better than the property he was living in.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 March 2023 about the length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve his parking issue. He said the landlord:
1. Had not provided any support in the months since he requested a disabled parking bay or arranged any visits to the site.
2. Should advise on the timescale for a resolution because he continued to suffer physically and mentally due to the difficulties in accessing the property.
The landlord advised the resident on 30 March 2023 that the landowner had given permission for the disabled bay, but the management company had requested a copy of the plan and quotes before it could be signed off. It said it would take measurements of the proposed bay and his current bay to ensure that it kept to the occupational therapist’s recommendations. It said it had requested quotes and would expect a response within a day or 2 and forward onto the management company. It identified an alternative parking bay the resident could use in the meantime.
The landlord advised the resident on 5 April 2023 that his complaint had been allocated to a manager who would provide a full response. It also advised him that it had chased the management company for updates regarding the disabled bay and it was waiting for a call back following the submission of the quotes obtained the previous week.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 21 April 2023 and queried why no one had responded to him. The landlord responded the same day. It acknowledged that it had received several emails from him, and apologised for the delay in responding. It said:
1. While the landowner had no objections to converting a bay into a disabled bay, it had encountered difficulties in obtaining permission.
2. The resident’s chosen bay may not be appropriate as it was out of the range specified by OT. The landlord said it would proceed with the resident’s approval and once permission had been obtained from the landowner.
In an email dated 26 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that it had not taken his concerns seriously and delayed its visit to the site. He expressed further dissatisfaction with the delays in handling his complaint. He said this was beginning to affect his mental health and causing him to feel suicidal. He reiterated that he felt confined in his home due to the delays in resolving the parking issue.
The landlord updated the resident on his complaint on 3 May 2023. It advised him that it would respond by 18 May 2023.
The landlord chased the landowner for an update on the disabled bay on 5 May 2023. It also wrote to the resident and acknowledged that it had not provided any recent updates to him. It said it was still waiting on the landowner and its management company’s permission for the disabled bay. It advised him that his application to the local council for re-housing was awaiting assessment.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 18 May 2023. It said:
1. The landlord had visited, and measured the distance from all the parking bays to the door on the recent visit in April 2023. It did not agree there was a service failure.
2. The resident had given his consent to the proposed parking bay even though it was further than the distance suggested by the occupational therapist.
3. Though he requested that the landlord should proceed with marking the disabled bay, it was unable to do so without the required consent.
4. It would continue to liaise with all the parties and advocate on his behalf.
5. It would like to offer the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays and a further £100 for the delay in dealing with the complaint.
The resident requested the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 18 May 2023. He said:
1. The accessibility problem was making it difficult to leave the property.
2. The landlord took 3 months to request an OT report.
3. The landlord should follow the occupational therapist’s recommendation and provide a parking space (within 15 metres of the property), in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the landowners had asked it to confirm in writing that it had no objections to the disabled parking bay. It said it had responded and was awaiting the outcome.
The landlord sent written acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2023. It said it would respond by 4 July 2023.
The landlord and the landowner communicated in several emails between 12 June and 26 June 2023.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 15 June 2023. He queried why he had not yet been sent an action plan. The landlord responded on 19 June 2023, that it had agreed to provide weekly updates to him. It also said it had provided an update on the investigation of the complaint when they met on 12 June 2023. In another email dated 19 June 2023, he asked why had not been sent any updates since 26 May 2023.
The landlord responded on 22 June 2023 and 23 June 2023 that it stopped providing updates when the resident raised a formal complaint and due to him saying that the weekly updates were not helpful. It said while the complaint was active, updates were to be sent through the complaints team.
The landlord noted in its internal email on 27 June 2023 that the bay identified for conversion belonged to another resident. It said it had tried to contact them by phone without success and had sent them an email.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 4 July 2023. Below is a summary of the landlord’s response:
1. It did not learn from its previous error as there was a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It apologised and increased its offer of compensation to £200.
2. The landlord would like to increase its offer of compensation for the impact of the delay in providing the disabled parking bay from £100 to £200. This brought the total offer to £400.
3. While it recognised the inconvenience caused by the delay, this was not the landlord’s fault.
4. Since their meeting it had received confirmation from the landowner to convert an existing bay directly next to the block (bay A) into a disabled parking bay. The resident should confirm if the space allocated (which was more than the 15 metres recommended in the OT report) would be acceptable. However, anyone with a disabled badge would be able to park in the bay.
5. It did not agree that it had acted against the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, as it had worked with external organisations to assist with his request and gain permission to install a disabled parking bay.
6. There had been periods where no updates had been provided due to the delay in receiving feedback from the relevant organisations. It acknowledged that it could have been clearer in its communications, that the weekly updates would be through the complaints process and for this it would like to offer £50.
On 4 July 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm if he would accept bay A so that it could take steps to re-allocate the bay to him. The resident said he did not feel it was appropriate to allocate another resident’s bay to him as the new bay should be created. The landlord clarified that the landowner and management company had advised that major changes could not be made to the external areas, as they had to adhere to the planning regulations in place.

Events that occurred after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been completed.

The landlord advised the resident on 10 July 2023 that the proposal of moving bays or swapping them was being considered by the relevant parties. It offered the resident the option of using either bay B or C temporarily, but that it needed to agree this with the residents who had use of the parking bays.
The landlord informed the resident on 20 July 2023 and 24 July 2023, that it was unable to allocate the proposed bay B due to the allocated user’s needs. It said it was still waiting for the user of bay C to respond to their calls.
The landlord informed the landowner on 24 July 2023, that the user of bay A had refused its request to be reallocated another bay. They discussed alternative options.
The resident informed the landlord on 24 July 2023 that he had made the decision to end his life on 12 August 2023. He said the landlord was not doing very much to resolve his housing problems. He said he had been discussing his feelings with his GP and his medication had been changed. He said he did not consider himself a danger to himself or to anyone. The landlord completed safeguarding referrals due to the resident’s expressions.
On 26 July 2023, the landlord advised the resident that all its efforts to explore the possibility of allocating 3 parking bays had failed. It suggested an alternative bay, though one not big enough to be widened. It asked him if he would be willing to accept it. It advised the resident to seek alternative means of housing if he did not wish to accept its suggestions.
The landlord communicated with its contractor regarding the marking of the disabled bays in August 2023.
The landlord contacted the local authority on 2 August 2023, to discuss the resident’s case and to find out if there was any support it could provide to aid his move to a more suitable accommodation. It said it had only been able to provide a temporary solution to his parking needs.
The local council informed the landlord on, 4 August 2023 that it had updated the resident’s application to reflect an urgent move. The landlord noted that its contractor would attend on 23 August 2023 to remark the bays. The landlord updated the resident on these changes.
The resident informed the landlord on 23 August 2023 that the contractors failed to carry out the works because they did not bring the right equipment.
The resident informed the landlord on 24 August 2023 that he would be terminating his tenancy on 8 September 2023. In its response dated 29 August 2023, the landlord apologised that the works were not done as planned. It advised the resident to continue to use the temporary parking bay pending the time the contractors sorted out the markings.
The landlord informed this Service that the resident ended his tenancy on 10 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the landlord took approximately 3 weeks to respond to the resident’s initial request for a disabled bay. This would have caused him some frustration. The landlord learned from this as it acknowledged the delay and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. It was also open from the outset regarding the resident’s request. The landlord made him aware that it was not within its power to allocate parking spaces as it did not own the land. It managed the resident’s expectations.
Under the tenancy agreement the provision of parking bays was not listed as one of the landlord’s responsibilities. However, the landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states that it will work with customers, councils, statutory authorities, third party management companies and other landlords to resolve issues that were not its direct responsibility. The evidence indicates that the landlord updated the resident on what it was doing to expedite his request for a disabled bay. We have seen that the landlord updated the resident on its discussions with the landowner and management company. This is noted from its updates to the resident on 8 March 2023 where it explained that it had provided documentation regarding the proposed areas designated for the disabled bay.
The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord advocated on behalf of the resident throughout the life of the case. This included its referral to occupational therapy and the local council to support him with his housing needs, as it was not within its power to provide the service the resident had requested. The landlord advised the resident of the hindrances it was facing in providing him with a disabled bay. An example is its email to the resident on 21 April 2023. The landlord explained that it could not install the disabled bay without the agreement and consent of the landowner.
In terms of the provision of the disabled bay, it is noted that the landlord submitted the resident’s chosen options for the disabled bay to the landowner and assured him that it had completed the necessary paperwork to the landowner in March 2023. However, the landlord advised the resident in June 2023 that the landowner had consulted with its legal advisers and rejected the proposal. While this would have been upsetting to the resident, this decision was outside the landlord’s control. The evidence further shows several discussions held by the landlord and the landowner for alternative options of parking for the resident, to prevent any further inconvenience to him. We have seen that it explored reallocating other resident’s bays between June and July 2023, to the resident but its efforts were not successful.
After the complaints process had been exhausted, the landlord continued to make efforts to ease the resident’s difficulties with parking particularly considering his suicidal expressions. It liaised with the landowner about other parking spaces that the resident could utilise which would be closer than his allocated parking bay. The landlord’s email to the resident on 29 August 2023 indicated that he had been allocated another bay for temporary use. The landlord continued to follow up the resident’s case with the relevant parties to come to a desired resolution for him. It followed up his housing application to the local council on 2 August 2023 as it had not been able to resolve his parking needs. This shows that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord said it had done everything within its power to support the resident’s request for a disabled bay, and that the delay in its provision was not its fault. The resident did not agree with this. There were occasions when the resident reported that it had defaulted from their agreement to provide weekly updates. An example is his email on 21 April 2023 and 15 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged on 21 April 2023, that it had delayed its updates, and it apologised for any inconvenience cause. It also stated in its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023 that it should have been clear that updates would be provided to him through its complaints team, once the complaints process had started. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered the resident £50 in compensation. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been adversely affected by the delay in providing him a disabled parking bay even though it was not directly responsible for this fault. It offered £200 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience as a gesture of goodwill. This offer goes over and beyond this Service’s remedies guidance where service failure has been found.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably and took proportionate action in its handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay. We have seen from the evidence that it was limited in the actions it could take and that it liaised with the relevant parties and external organisations to support the resident. The actions taken showed that it took steps to make reasonable adjustments for the resident’s needs in line with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It recognised the impact of the delays, even though it was outside its control and offered the resident compensation. The landlord also acknowledged there were periods where it failed to communicate effectively. It sought redress through an apology and its offer of compensation.
The landlord sought alternative means of parking closer to the property in July 2023, as a temporary measure and arranged for the bay to be marked. However, the resident terminated his tenancy before the works were carried out. In view of the above, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint was delayed. The resident raised the complaint on 29 March 2023, but it did not respond until 18 May 2023. This was 36 working days after the complaint was received, as opposed to the 10 working days timescale stated in its complaints policy. While this was a long delay, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord provided updates on the substantive issue raised by the resident to mitigate the impact of the delays on him.
This is noted from the landlord’s emails to the resident on 30 March 2023, 5 April 2023, and 21 April 2023. We have also seen that it sought to manage the resident’s expectations (in its email dated 3 May 2023) by informing him that it would aim to respond to the complaint by 18 May 2023. While the Ombudsman welcomes this step, this was far late in the complaints process and should have been done earlier to minimise the impact of the delays on the resident. The landlord realised its error and it explained that the delay was caused due to the late allocation of the complaint to its staff. It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience caused. It also offered compensation in the amount of £100 in compliance with its compensation policy.
Although the landlord acknowledged the failures in its handling of the stage 1 complaint, it did not learn from it. The resident requested the escalation of his complaint on 18 May 2023, but the landlord did not acknowledge it until 6 June 2023 (approximately 13 working days). This was not within the timescale of 5 working days stated in its complaints handling policy. As with the stage 1 complaint, it said the delay occurred because the complaint was not assigned for to an investigator within its complaints team on time. This shows that it had not learned from its previous error. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 4 July 2023, 33 working days after the complaint was received, which fell far outside the timescale of 20 working days stated in its complaint policy.
The landlord acknowledged the delay and the inconvenience this would have caused the resident in its stage 2 response and offered £100 in compensation. The amount offered (£200 in total) is in line with its own compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. However, the landlord did not identify any areas of learning or training for staff in its complaint handling to prevent this failure from occurring in the future. The resident expressed in his email dated 26 April 2023 that the delay in handling his case, and the complaint was affecting his mental health. Considering this, the landlord should have taken steps to prevent the same error from occurring or set out an action plan to identify its cause and put it right.
Under its complaints policy, the landlord promises to assess and analyse complaints to identify trends, causes or systemic issues to learn and make improvements to its services, policies, and procedures. It did not follow this approach in practice, and it is for this reason that the Ombudsman has found service failure in its handling of the associated complaint. An order will be made to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the loss of his burger van is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There was some missing evidence in the earlier stages, which prevented this Service from assessing whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay within a reasonable period. However, the landlord kept the resident updated on what it was doing to assist. The evidence shows that it advocated on the resident’s behalf, through referrals to the relevant external organisations to facilitate the provision of a disabled parking bay. The landlord sought to put things right, even though the delays in providing the disabled parking bay was not its fault. This showed that it took the resident’s needs seriously.
There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. The landlord recognised the delays and offered some redress which included an apology and compensation. However, it failed to follow its internal complaints policy in reviewing the need for an action plan to prevent a reoccurrence.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the complaint.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the distress and frustration caused by its complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident the £450 previously offered if it has not yet been paid to him.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Review any learning from its handling of the complaint. Following this, it should set out an action plan to ensure that complaints are processed in line with the timescales set out within its complaints policy.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.