Bromford Housing Group Limited (202215298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215298

Bromford Housing Group Limited

15 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns about parking outside her home.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 28 February 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.
In front of her property to the left are 2 unmarked parking bays that sit adjacent to each other. The neighbour that lives next door to her (‘Neighbour A’) also has 2 unmarked parking bays to the right of their property that sit adjacent to each other. There is a small piece of road that joins the parking bays located in front of the houses. The development also includes a turning circle which connects the properties to the road network. Behind the turning circle, another neighbour (‘Neighbour B’), who is a private tenant, owns a garage. The garage sits next to the border of the turning circle.
The resident’s complaint centres around the use of the car parking around her housing development. She explained to her landlord on 13 October 2022 that:
1. Neighbour A:
  1. incorrectly parked their cars across their parking bays, which meant they also parked over the road that joins the parking bays in front of the houses. She explained this made it difficult to enter and leave her parking bays. It also meant she had to park the same way to ensure she can use the car park.
  2. breached their tenancy agreement by parking a SORN car and car without an MOT in the car park development.
  3. parked in front of the entrance to the car parking bays, which obstructed her access to the car parking bays to the right of her property. This is because the entrance is narrow.
  4. damaged her car by parking next to it and made a false insurance claim against her.
2. Neighbour B used the turning circle to park their van and visitors’ cars, which she said:
  1. made it difficult to access her parking bays.
  2. meant her visitors were unable to use the turning circle to park their cars.
In response, the landlord said it inspected the car park development. It found neither neighbour to be obstructing the resident’s access to the car parking bays outside of her property.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 October 2022 because:
1. she said she was in dispute with Neighbour A over a “false” insurance claim against her, and they were being verbally abusive.
2. Neighbour A had 4 cars, and one of those was parked in the middle of the road between the properties, which made it difficult for her to access her car parking bays.
3. Neighbour B was parking a van in the turning area to access their garage. She felt they should not park in the turning circle because the parking development was not intended to be for their use.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022. It said:
1. it had reviewed the layout of the driveway and the garage and found:
  1. parking outside of her house was shared between the resident, the neighbour, and visitors.
  2. the road was private.
  3. the spaces within the area were not allocated or designated to either the resident or Neighbour A. This meant it “could be viewed as a first come first served basis.”
2. parking disputes were down to residents to resolve. Unless there were issues with criminal damage, an unroadworthy car parked on the development or vandalism.
3. it had suggested marking the bays by requesting a scheme improvement.
4. it had also suggested landscaping over the bushes on either side of the bays to open it up at each end. However, it would only do this if both parties agreed, and the resident had declined the landscaping of the bushes at the side of her bay.
5. it explained the garage next to the turning circle was owned by a private resident. And they parked their van in a “certain way to enable the van to be present without being in the way”. It said it had spoken to Neighbour B and did not have any concerns surrounding the parking because it did not affect the resident.
The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction with the parking around the property between 9 November 2022 and 20 March 2023. In that time, she also notified the landlord that she had not received the stage 1 response. The landlord reissued the response on 13 March 2023 and escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated because:
1. she tried to contact her officer on 18 April 2023 but had not had a response. This was about whether she would be receiving any further complaint responses or if her letter on 4 November 2022 marked the end of the complaint process.
2. she still had concerns that the turning circle was being blocked by Neighbour B’s van. She said 2 cars were often parked there and this prevented her from using the area if she had visitors.
3. she was concerned Neighbour B was trying to “take back the land” despite the planning application for the housing development including conditions for the use of the road.
4. she wanted the landlord to explain to Neighbour B that they should not park on the turning circle because it should be for the use of the resident and Neighbour A.
5. Neighbour B had recently stationed a skip at the turning circle where they normally parked.
6. she wanted clarification over the parking situation, including whether Neighbour B was able to park in the turning circle. And if so, why this was the case.
7. she was unhappy with the landlord’s use of the comment “first come, first served” to refer to the parking outside the house.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 June 2023. It said:
1. it recognised there was a “disparity” from when it issued its stage 1 response to when the resident received it (13 March 2023). This was because it was unaware she had not received the stage 1 response until she called it on 8 March 2023.
2. after some correspondence, it was under the impression the resident was happy for her complaint to be closed. However, when the resident confirmed this was not the case, it had escalated her complaint.
3. it had reviewed the correspondence to date, the pictures she had sent, and discussed the case with relevant officers.
4. the “current parking situation” was that there were “parking spaces outside both [the resident and Neighbour A’s] property, but no designated parking spaces”. The “consensus” was that the resident parked in front of her property and [Neighbour A] in front of theirs.
5. Neighbour B owned a garage that bordered the turning area that linked the resident’s property to the road network. The van was parked at the base of the garage on the road, but this did not impede the turning area of the car park.
6. it was unable to discuss whether it had permitted Neighbour B to park in the turning circle, as this was subject to GDPR. But Neighbour B had a right of access to their garage at the rear of the property. This was why there was a “small indent” to the right of the turning area. It also said this was mentioned in the permission document for the development of the resident and Neighbour A’s properties.
7. it had spoken with relevant officers to understand who owned the land and “what was allowed in terms of parking”. And after they had inspected the area, they had addressed this in a letter to her dated 22 February 2023.
8. it had liaised with the police, who clarified that a parking offence would not occur unless cars were blocking each other, or if there was an infringement of painted lines or signage. However, it had no record of any “safety concerns with the parking” or “instances of cars being blocked”.
9. it had previously advised her it would not involve itself with parking disputes and expected neighbours to sort these matters out between themselves.
10. it had reviewed the skip and found this was also not impeding her use of the turning circle. This was because it was placed where the van was usually parked and bordered up to the garage. It said it did not expect this to remain indefinitely, but it would investigate the matter further if it was still there after the date of its letter.
11. it should not have said in its stage 1 response that parking was “first come, first served” It said to clarify this comment further, “[it] referred solely to the area in the immediate front area [of her property] not including the turning area. Because these are not marked or defined spaces, this was the wrong language to use.”
12. it had:
  1. delayed in issuing its stage 1 response and it should have agreed an extension with her.
  2. recognised the date on its stage 1 response was incorrect as it said 4 October 2022 instead of 4 November 2022.
  3. delayed in corresponding with the resident for 4 months, which contributed to the delay in finding that she had not received her stage 1 response.
  4. explained and apologised that there was a misunderstanding over the closure of the stage 1 complaint, as it was under the impression that this is what she wanted to do at the time.
  5. said it ought to have written to the resident to clarify why decisions had been taken regarding the parking situation and why the current parking situation is the way it is. This meant it did not address all the points of her complaint.
13. it offered £125 compensation for these failures. However, it would not take further action regarding the parking issues raised.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 22 October 2023 because:
1. the parking issues she had raised with her landlord were ongoing.
2. she had not been updated on the landlord’s progress to remove some of the landscaping around the bays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The interpretation of the land transfer conveyance for the resident’s housing development, including boundaries, and any retained rights of access over the car park, is a technical legal question. Should these issues be in dispute, this would fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Registry, the tribunal, or a court to make a judgement based on the merits of the case. A determination of one of these bodies would be more reasonable and effective for all parties, as the finding would be based on professional evidence and be legally binding. The Ombudsman recognises, however, that this may require the landlord to make such an application.
For clarity, this investigation will be looking at how the landlord handled the resident’s query and formal complaint.
We recognise the resident also raised concerns about Neighbour A’s cars being SORN and without an MOT. While this was mentioned in correspondence between the resident and landlord, this was not included as part of the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2022 or her escalation request on 1 May 2023. Therefore, the landlord did not respond to this element through its complaint procedure.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this issue, she is able to raise it to the landlord as a complaint in the first instance.

Parking dispute

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not contain a contractual right to use the parking bays outside of her house or the turning circle. Similarly, there is no contractual obligation that places responsibility on the landlord to manage the car parking bays, the turning circle, or associated neighbour disputes about these matters in a particular way. Given the absence of any rights, responsibilities or obligations, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns on the basis of reasonableness.
In October 2022, the resident raised concerns about the use of the parking bays by Neighbour A, and the use of the turning circle by Neighbour B, as set out earlier in this report. In November 2022, as part of its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had reviewed the layout of the driveway and garage and found:
1. the spaces were not allocated to either the resident or Neighbour A. But it could consider painting lines to distinguish the bays to indicate if somebody were taking over more than one bay. And it could look to open up the edges of the parking bays by removing the landscaping on each side. To do so, it would make a neighbourhood improvement request.
2. the garage belonged to Neighbour B and the van parked a certain way, so it was not “in the way”. It had spoken to Neighbour B and did not have concerns about the parking, nor did it feel that this affected the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had:
1. conducted inspections of the parking area.
2. written to the resident on 22 February 2023 to address her concerns about the parking. However, the letter is dated 2 March 2023.
3. liaised with the police to clarify what constituted a parking offence. And confirmed this threshold had not been met.

Neighbour A

We consider the landlord’s initial proposals regarding the resident’s concerns about Neighbour A were reasonable in the circumstances. We recognise that the resident said the parking situation caused her distress. However, as the landlord is not obligated to regulate the car parking in a particular way, there is no obligation for it to take specific steps to address the resident’s concerns. Therefore, when it suggested distinguishing the bays and removing the landscaping, this demonstrated it had considered her concerns and had offered a pragmatic solution despite having no obligation to find a resolution.
However, the resident told the landlord on 9 May 2023 that she had not received any updates regarding the landlord’s improvement request. The landlord said in its internal communications at this time that “until it heard back from [its] neighbourhood improvement request” it could not do anything further.
The landlord provided no evidence to us to demonstrate it had made a neighbourhood improvement request. Nor did it provide evidence it was monitoring this request and taking steps to chase its progress. It is unclear if this is because it did not make a request or that it failed to provide us with evidence of having done so. That it did not was a failure to demonstrate it had made a request to alter the car park. And a failure to show it was taking appropriate action to progress its request. This was evidence of poor record keeping.
Further, there was no evidence that it had updated the resident about the progress of the request or that it had explained how long the process might take. That it did not was a failure to engage with the resident meaningfully and proactively about the solutions. And a missed opportunity to manage her expectations about the length and/or complexity of the process. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble requesting an update from the landlord.
At the time of writing this report, the resident said she had still not been updated on the landlord’s progress. Further, the landscaping remained unaltered, and the bays remained undistinguished. While we accept that requests for improvements may take time to be processed, the landlord ought to have explained the process and updated the resident. This would have been in line with the former Complaint Handling Code (April 2022), which obligates the landlord to continue to monitor outstanding actions through to completion, following the end of the complaints process.
The landlord said it conducted inspections of the car parking in its stage 2 response. Specifically, it referred to an inspection with a surveyor on 15 February 2023 in its letter to the resident in March 2023. The letter explained that it considered the parking issue with Neighbour A to be a neighbour dispute and that “there [may be] a certain level of day to day disturbance, including the use of cars, that has to be accepted when living next to others”. In other correspondence, the landlord repeated that it would be up to the resident and her neighbour to resolve matters.
We note the landlord’s decision not to utilise its ASB policy was reasonable, given the matter was related to actions the resident felt were inconsiderate, but not a breach of tenancy. This was in line with its ASB policy. However, we also note that the landlord does not operate a tenancy management policy. While this is not a requirement, we consider that this may have assisted the landlord to meaningfully support the resident and her neighbour to try to resolve matters. For example, the consideration of mediation may have been an early effective tool to support both individuals to openly discuss the parking situation and come to a solution. This was a shortcoming. We recommend that the landlord consider implementing a tenancy management policy to provide a robust framework to support its residents through neighbour disputes.

Neighbour B

In her escalation request (May 2023), the resident asked the landlord to explain if Neighbour B had a right to park in the turning circle and, if so, to explain why this was the case. At this time, she had provided it with copies of the planning application, the title plan and the charges register for her housing development.
The charges register explains that the landlord granted a right in favour of Neighbour B over “retained land” for “vehicles to pass and repass at all times and for all purpose in connection with the use of the retained land of the accessway, provided always that the [successors in title] do not obstruct or permit obstruction of the accessway.”
The landlord took the following action throughout the complaint:
1. in its stage 1 response (October 2022) it said it had spoken with Neighbour B and “as they are private, [it] had no concerns surrounding the parking”.
2. in its stage 2 response (June 2023) it said that Neighbour B has a right of access to the garage at the rear of the property. And that this is mentioned in the planning application, the resident had provided it with.
3. it also said in its stage 2 response that it had spoken with the neighbourhood officers to understand who owns the land and what “is and isn’t allowed in terms of parking”. Further, it had already written to the resident to address this matter in March 2023.
The landlord did not provide evidence of its discussions with Neighbour B. While it may have been reasonable to discuss the parking matter with them to help it understand if any action may be required, it did not make a record of having done so. This was a missed opportunity to document the investigations that took place into the resident’s concerns. It is unclear if this is how the landlord became aware that Neighbour B may have a right of access to the garage affecting the turning circle.
The landlord’s repeated position during stage 2 of the complaints process was that Neighbour B has the right to access their garage. While this may be the case, the resident’s request was to understand the “rationale” behind this. In line with the former Code 2022, in force at the time, the landlord should have addressed this point and given clear reasons for its decision, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had consulted the conveyancing documents as part of its investigations. In doing so, and referencing this in its formal response, it would have explained the contractual responsibilities of the parties. That it did not meant it failed to provide a clear reason for its decision. As such, it failed to adhere to the former Code by answering all of the resident’s complaint. This left the resident uncertain about why Neighbour B was able to access his garage from the turning circle.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had told Neighbour B that they could park their cars in general in the turning circle. She was distressed by the thought of this because she felt an officer had unfairly granted permission to Neighbour B to do so. Had it referenced its responsibilities under the conveyance, this may have corrected any misinterpretation on the resident’s part about how Neighbour B’s right of access to the garage arose.
It told the resident in its stage 2 response that it did not consider their parking to obstruct or impact her because it did not affect her ability to access the parking bays near her house or her use of the turning circle. While it was entitled to make this decision, there is no evidence that the landlord specifically answered the resident’s query about whether Neighbour B was allowed to park their cars in the turning circle outside of accessing their garage.
We are unable to provide an interpretation of the rights granted to Neighbour B. However, even though there may be a right of access to the garage, it does not necessarily follow that there is a right to use the turning circle as a means to park vehicles outside of the purposes of accessing the garage. The landlord ought to have clarified its position about whether Neighbour B was permitted to park in the turning circle, in which situations this applied, and the reasons behind its decision.
In doing so, it would have been reasonable for it to have sought legal advice about the scope of the “right” it had “granted” to Neighbour B. That it did not meant it failed to fully investigate and answer this element of the resident’s complaint. This is because Neighbour B’s right of access to the garage was not the resident’s main issue. It was how the turning circle was being used to facilitate this, as well as being used as a general parking space. This caused frustration to the resident because the landlord failed to answer all of her complaint.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord acted reasonably when it provided resolutions to remedy the resident’s concerns about the parking situation with Neighbour A. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had requested to alter the development to distinguish the bays and remove the landscaping. It also failed to update the resident and manage her expectations about the progress of its request. This caused the resident distress because she felt the landlord was not honouring its agreement to take action.
There was also a theme of poor record keeping because the landlord had not adequately evidenced its inspections of the parking or the discussions it was having with the resident’s neighbours. It also missed opportunities to explain the reason behind the right of access concerning Neighbour B and whether this extended to using the turning circle and as a general parking space. In doing so, it failed to answer all the elements of the resident’s complaint, which caused the resident distress.
Given that there were several independent service failures found in this investigation, we have made a cumulative finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord’s investigations into the substantive issue did not acknowledge the failures identified in this report. As such, it did not address the detriment to the resident.
To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident and pay £150 to recognise the distress its failures caused the resident. It must also write to her to confirm if Neighbour B is permitted to park in the turning circle, in which situations this applies, and the reasons behind its decision. This must reference any relevant legal documentation.
It must also review its record keeping in this case and consider why it failed to capture important information about its investigations. And how it can prevent this from happening in future.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time of the complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
1. stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response (4 November 2022) 11 working days after the resident’s complaint (20 October 2022). The landlord failed to explain that its response was delayed and when a response would be received. This was a departure from the former Code. However, there is no evidence that this significantly impacted the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 4 October 2022. However, it said in its stage 2 response that this was a mistake. And the letter ought to have been dated 4 November 2022 in line with when it was issued. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £25 to acknowledge its mistake. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident told the landlord on 8 March 2023 that she had not received a copy of her stage 1 response. The landlord issued this to her 3 working days later. While this was unfortunate, the landlord acted appropriately once it became aware the resident had not received the response.
The landlord also identified in its stage 2 response that it had failed to communicate with the resident for 4 months prior to this event. And that this had contributed to the delay in finding the resident had not received her stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for this and offered the resident £25 to address its failure. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord said it received the resident’s escalation request on 9 May 2023. However, the evidence shows the resident expressing to the landlord that the complaint had not been resolved in an email dated 1 May 2023. In this email, she explained she remained unhappy with the parking situation. And asked the landlord to confirm whether a further complaint response would be provided, so she could understand whether she could refer her complaint to our Service. Therefore, the landlord failed to identify and progress the resident’s escalation request at the earliest opportunity. This contributed to the landlord’s delay in issuing its complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response (29 June 2023), 40 working days after the resident’s escalation request (1 May 2023). This was outside of the timeframes set out in the former Code.
It is noted the landlord said it agreed to an extension with the resident on 15 June 2023. We recognise that explaining to the resident it needed an extension was in line with the former Code. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it provided the resident with a revised timeframe for when the response would be received. It is unclear if this was a failure to capture the necessary information or if a revised timeframe was not discussed. Nonetheless, this was a departure from the former Code because the landlord could not demonstrate it had complied with this element when explaining the need for an extension.
The landlord also said it had mistakenly closed the resident’s complaint following a telephone call on 31 March 2023. This was after it had reissued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023. It said it had misinterpreted the conversation with the resident and was under the impression she was happy for it to close the complaint. The resident said that she had not agreed to close the complaint but had acknowledged the information being explained to her about when complaints are closed. The landlord appropriately apologised for this in its stage 2 response and awarded the resident £25 compensation to address its failure.

Conclusion

As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response, it had undertaken a detailed analysis of its complaint handling at stage 1 of the process. This was positive to note because it apologised and offered the resident compensation to try and put things right for the majority of the failures we found as part of our investigation.
However, it did not identify its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint at stage 2, or its failure to provide evidence it had complied with its obligation to provide a revised timeframe for its stage 2 response. However, we recognise the landlord tried to mitigate the latter by acting broadly in line with the former Code by explaining it required an extension.
In light of this, we have made a finding of service failure. This is because the landlord’s administrative error in identifying the escalation request ultimately caused the delay the resident experienced. This prevented the resident from seeking an earlier resolution through our Service.
To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident and pay her £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her. The landlord must also provide evidence that it has arranged for complaint handling training for relevant staff members in the last 12 months. This is to ensure they are in the best position to identify escalation requests and to comply with the current Code requirements when requesting an extension.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £200 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the failures related to its handling of the resident’s concerns about the parking.
  2. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the failures related to its complaint handling.
3. write to the resident to:
  1. confirm if Neighbour B is permitted to park in the turning circle, in which situations this applies, and the reasons behind its decision. This must reference any relevant legal documentation.
  2. provide an update on its request for the scheme improvement. This must include what was included in the request, an overview of the process, associated timeframes for response, and the intervals it will provide her with updates.
4. evidence it has provided complaint handling training to relevant staff members in the last 12 months. This must include the Code provisions relating to requesting extensions and escalation requests.
5. assess its record keeping for the investigations it carried out during the complaint. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded concerning its home visits, site visits, discussions with neighbours, and the surveys it carried out. As well as which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.
6. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord consider implementing a tenancy management policy to support it to assist residents when encountering disputes that fall outside of its ASB policy.