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

Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202313562)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313562

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

14 February 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Parking arrangements.
    2. Staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. He has lived at the property with his wife since 2022.
  2. The landlord contracts out the management of the block’s use of the car park to an external provider. Residents require a permit to use the car park. The resident’s tenancy agreement includes no mention of the specific parking arrangements for the building
  3. The resident telephoned the landlord on 22 June 2023 to complain about the parking arrangements at the block. He was also unhappy at how a member of its staff had treated him.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. It refunded £170 charged to the resident’s son in parking fines as a good will gesture. It accepted it could have been clearer in explaining the parking arrangements when the resident moved in. It awarded him £50 compensation.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 14 July 2023. He remained unhappy with the parking arrangements and said it had not addressed his concerns about the member of staff.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023. It agreed to hold a consultation about the parking arrangements with all residents in the block. It apologised for how its staff had dealt with him and said it was looking into additional customer service training for its staff. It increased the compensation it had offered from £50 to £150. 
  7. The resident contacted this Service in August 2023 unhappy at the landlord’s response to his complaint. He was concerned at the length of time it would take it to reconsider the parking arrangements and did not feel it had addressed the concerns he raised about its staff. He wanted it to resolve his parking dispute and investigate his concerns about the member of staff’s conduct.

Assessment and findings

Scoping

  1. Throughout the resident’s complaints to the landlord and in his contact with this Service he has raised concerns about the experiences of other residents in the block use of the parking arrangements. These comments have not been considered in our investigation as those residents would be required to raise them with the landlord themselves.
  2. As part of his complaint about parking arrangements the resident is concerned that the arrangements are a breach of his tenancy agreement. It is helpful to explain at this point that this Service cannot decide on whether there has been a breach of contract because those matters require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman is unable to provide. Our investigation has considered how the landlord handled the concerns the resident raised about the legality of the parking arrangements. If the resident remains concerned about the legality of the parking arrangements he may want to seek legal advice.
  3. It is also noted that following further contact from the resident and other residents of the block that the landlord completed a second consultation in May 2024. Following that it agreed to allow residents up to 2 visitor parking permits per flat upon request. In the interest of fairness, the investigation will focus on the period from when the resident raised his complaint to the actions the landlord took immediately after its stage 2 response. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. If the resident has any further concerns about the consultation the landlord completed in 2024 he would need to raise them with the landlord in the first instance.

Parking

  1. The landlord introduced new parking arrangements in 2017 following a consultation with residents of the block. It allowed each flat up to 2 parking permits with no additional permits for visitors. It employed an external parking management to monitor the car park and administer parking notices.
  2. The resident’s tenancy began in 2022. The landlord has not provided evidence of what it discussed with him about the parking arrangements for the building at the start of his tenancy. It said it verbally told him about the parking arrangements and accepted that it delayed in issuing him with his 2 permits. The resident disputes the landlord’s version of events and without a record of the conversations this Service is unable to form a view of what the landlord told him at the beginning of his tenancy. The limited information held before the resident’s formal complaint shows that he had raised concerns about the parking arrangements with the landlord in advance of that complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have held records of those conversations so that it was aware of his concerns.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2023 and asked to raise a complaint about the parking arrangements for the block. He was unhappy that his son had received parking fines when visiting him. He had reimbursed his son for the fines which caused him financial difficulty. He thought the current parking arrangements which required him to have a permit were a breach of his tenancy agreement.
  4. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 investigation it refunded £170 worth of parking fines to the resident (that his son had been charged) as a gesture of goodwill. It identified that the consultation on parking predated when he moved in. Given that information, it was appropriate the landlord asked its legal team for guidance. It responded that because the landlord had properly consulted the residents of the block about the changes at the time they happened, there was no legal issue.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord told the resident that it had not agreed for his son or other visitors to use the car park. It said it had told him about the parking arrangements when he signed his tenancy but accepted it could have been clearer in doing so. For that it awarded him £50 in compensation. It said that it would not reimburse any further parking fines for vehicles not permitted to use the car park. It agreed to consult all residents over the parking arrangements in the block. The action taken by the landlord at stage 1 was appropriate, the compensation awarded reflected the landlord’s compensation policy for low impact distress and inconvenience. It was also reasonable that it refunded the car parking fines because up until it set outs its position in its stage 1 response there was no record that it had informed the resident that it did not allow visitors to use the car park without a permit.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in a letter dated 14 July 2023. He did not consider the landlord to be serving the best interests of the residents in its handling of the car parking arrangements. He was concerned that landlord staff members were misusing the car park and repeated that the implementation of parking permits was a breach of his tenancy agreement. He said it had never informed him there was a maximum of 2 permits per flat. He refused the £50 compensation.
  7. The landlord held a video meeting with the resident during its stage 2 investigation. He told it that the parking arrangements were not benefiting the residents and felt it was denying accountability. He suggested that it an attached an addendum to future tenancy agreements specific to the block which could include details about the parking arrangements and relevant contact details of the parking services company.
  8. The landlord began its consultation with all residents of the block in August 2023. It wrote to all residents with an invitation to complete a survey about the parking arrangements on 17 August 2023. That action was appropriate because any changes to the parking arrangements would affect all residents who either used or wanted to use the car park.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it told the resident it had begun the consultation to ensure it was being fair and consistent with all residents. It apologised for the upset it had caused him in relation to his concerns it had not taken accountability for its actions. Having spoken to him during its investigation it accepted the distress and inconvenience experienced by him was more suited to the medium impact banding of its compensation policy. In recognition of that it appropriately increased its offer of compensation from £50 to £150. It agreed to follow up with him over the concerns he had raised over the legality of the parking arrangements. It did not address his suggestion that it provide information about the parking arrangements to new tenants.
  10. The landlord followed its stage 2 response with an email on 25 August 2023 where it told the resident it had sought external legal advice about his complaint the parking arrangements were in breach of his tenancy. It said its solicitor advised it was not in breach of the tenancy agreement and that its approach in consulting all residents was appropriate In seeking additional, external legal advice the landlord showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  11. The landlord completed its parking consultation in October 2023. After reviewing the residents’ responses, it decided the parking arrangements of 2 permits per flat would remain in place. Having considered the views of all the residents who completed the survey the landlord was entitled to decide how it would proceed. During the consultation several residents raised concerns about its operatives using the car park when on jobs nearby or to use the local shops. It was appropriate that it agreed to ensure its operatives would only use the car park if they were working in the block itself. Also from October 2023, using the feedback from residents the landlord began to provide prospective residents with information about the parking arrangements during property viewings. It is not recorded when the landlord shared the results of its consultation with residents.
  12. The landlord acted appropriately in how it has handled the resident’s concerns about the parking arrangements in the block. It accepted that it could have been clearer at the start of his tenancy and awarded compensation for that. It also considered the wider impact of any potential changes to the parking arrangements in consulting with all residents and took his concerns seriously when it held a video meeting to discuss his complaint. In refunding the resident’s son’s car parking fines, awarding £150 compensation, and agreeing to a consultation over the parking arrangements at the block the landlord has acted reasonably in handling the resident’s concerns about parking arrangements. That has resulted in finding of reasonable redress.

Staff conduct

  1. In assessing the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s staff conduct it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 22 June 2023 that a member of its staff had spoken over him when he was trying to explain his concerns about parking. He said he felt they had provided him with a poor level of customer service when they told him his son should pay the parking fines. Landlords should keep records of their interactions with residents. This enables them to maintain a fair and consistent approach in dealing with all residents. There is no record held of the resident’s conversation with the member of staff. In failing to record that conversation it has not shown it had an oversight of what advice or guidance it gave during that interaction.
  3. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct in its stage 1 response. That was not appropriate. It should have completed an investigation and provided the resident with its findings in its response.
  4. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to address his concerns about its member of staff’s behaviour in its stage 1 response.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for how its staff dealt with the resident and said it was looking into further customer service training for its staff. In simply offering a broad apology the landlord did not show that it had investigated the specific concerns the resident had made about its member of staff. For that reason there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. It did not demonstrate to the resident that it had taken his concerns seriously.
  6. The landlord made further reference to the staff complaint in its 25 August 2023 update. It apologised that its member of staff did not provide the level of service it expects. It assured him that it kept training needs of all staff under review and feedback including from complaints helped it focus on where to deliver training. Again, the landlord has not provided evidence it completed an investigation into the staff complaint. 
  7. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since the resident’s interaction with the member of staff it would not be proportionate to order the landlord to revisit the issue and complete an investigation. Instead, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate his complaint about staff conduct. That amount falls within the service failure banding of this Services remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking arrangements.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for its failure to investigate his complaint about staff conduct in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for making apologies
    2. Pay him £100 in compensation in relation to his staff complaint.
  2. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the £150 compensation offered to the resident in its stage 2 response.