Clarion Housing Association Limited (202222643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222643

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking enforcement at her scheme.

Background

2. The resident has been a secure tenant since 28 October 2003. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
3. The resident pays a fee to the landlord to rent 2 car parking bays outside her property. The landlord introduced a parking scheme, overseen by a third party contractor, on 15 April 2021. The resident pays a fee to that contractor for a permit for each space.
4. On 22 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask if the CCTV camera, which monitored the parking, could be moved to a different location as she believed it did not cover her parking bay and therefore others were parking in it. The landlord made enquiries with the contractor who confirmed the camera covered the whole parking area and confirmed if a car were parked in a bay where it did not have a registered permit it would issue a parking charge notice (PCN).
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 August 2022. She said the CCTV did not monitor the whole car park which meant that anyone could park in her second bay. She asked the landlord to contact the contractor to say that she had been issued a fine incorrectly.
6. The resident chased the landlord on 15 August 2022 and 25 August 2022. The resident raised a formal complaint, via her councillor, on 29 September 2022. The key points were as follows:
   1. The resident said she had been writing to the landlord about fines that had been issued for her parking bays.
   2. A car was parked in bay 1 but the CCTV did not monitor this due to its location and therefore the fines were being issued for the wrong vehicle.
   3. The CCTV was only monitoring part of the scheme and therefore the resident said she would always be the culprit as the camera was directed solely at her bay.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2022, in which it found no service failure. The key points were as follows:
   1. It confirmed it had contacted the parking contractor who confirmed the camera installation could see everything needed for parking enforcement and it was not aware of any confusion in relation to the bays.
   2. It confirmed that the contractor had said the resident’s permits for both bays had expired on 14 May 2022. The contractor had sent 3 reminders to the resident. The permits were renewed on 9 September 2022.
   3. It confirmed all the PCNs issued were between 12 May 2022 and 9 September 2022, when the permit had lapsed.
8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. The resident said the landlord had ignored her complaints and refused to understand the full details.
   2. Her neighbour was parking in her bay that she paid for, but that neighbour had received no fines.
   3. She said the CCTV did not cover her neighbours parking in her bay and therefore they were getting away with not paying for it. She therefore requested the landlord move the CCTV.
   4. She said she had been wrongly sent fines and complained about a car incorrectly parked in bay 1 which was not covered by the camera.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 April 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. Its parking contractor had confirmed the camera could see the full car park and was not aware of any confusion with the bays.
   2. The resident’s permits had lapsed on 14 May 2022 and the PCNs had only been issued during that time.
   3. It confirmed the CCTV captured all the areas it needed to and was not solely directed on the resident’s space. The landlord said it would try to get a photo to highlight what the camera captured.
   4. The landlord said the resident should be able to use the bays for which she had paid and confirmed it could not discuss fines or parking issues that related to other bay users.
   5. It confirmed it had found no service failure but awarded £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 complaint response.
10. In referring to this Service, the resident said the landlord did not understand her complaints. She requested a full refund of the fines and monies paid and removal of the CCTV. She said other residents had wrongly parked in her bays that other cars were parked in her bays, and they had not received any fines.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised that she disputed the PCNs issued to her and asked for a refund of the fines paid. The Ombudsman’s can only consider complaints that concern matters which relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider or investigate the validity of the fines issued. The investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue, its communication and response to the resident’s concerns. The resident has the option to seek legal advice in relation to the above if she wishes.

Policies and procedures

12. The tenancy agreement sets out that a resident must not park anywhere on the scheme unless it is on a designated parking place.

Parking enforcement

13. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2022 to express concerns about the location of the camera and asked if the landlord could move the camera to stop others parking in her bay. The landlord contacted the contractor the same date to make enquiries. This swift action highlighted was reasonable in the circumstances.
14. However, while the landlord received a response from the contractor to confirm the camera covered all areas and could not be moved, the evidence shows the landlord only tried to contact the resident via phone, unsuccessfully, to convey the information. It would have been useful for the landlord to have attempted further contact or considered if an email was appropriate to ensure the resident received a response to her query.
15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 May 2022 to state that she wished to discuss unauthorised vehicles parking in her bay and the location of the CCTV. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it contacted the resident to discuss her concerns with her. Landlords need to ensure they have effective communication with residents to manage their expectations. Not doing so left the resident without answers to her concerns.
16. The resident then contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2022 and 15 August 2022 to chase a response. She asked again that the camera be moved as she did not believe it covered all the spaces. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have contacted the resident, discussed her concerns and highlighted that the contractor had previously confirmed the suitability of the camera’s location. Not doing so showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
17. Following further contact from the resident on 25 August 2022, internal emails show that the landlord contacted the parking contractor again to confirm the cameras position. Following this the contractor confirmed it could not move the camera but also that the resident had no valid permit. Given the residents persistent concerns, it was appropriate of the landlord to confirm with its contractor that the camera was working as it should.
18. However, the evidence provided shows that the landlord did not communicate this to the resident until its formal complaint response on 6 October 2022. This delay is unreasonable given the residents clear distress at the situation. This would have been a further opportunity to provide reassurance to the resident, at the earliest opportunity, that the camera was running as it should and its lack of prompt response ultimately led the resident to raise a formal complaint.
19. However, following the complaint the evidence does highlight that the landlord sought further clarification from the parking contractor to confirm the camera position, that it covered both the resident’s bays and that fines were only issued during the period when the permits had lapsed. This further clarification, which it provided to the resident in its complaint response, highlighted a commitment from the landlord to reassure the resident that the system was working as it should.
20. The resident then contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 as she wanted help with the parking fines she had received. The landlord appropriately responded and explained that the contractor dealt with the PCNs and further explained how the costs she paid to the landlord and the contractor differed. It reiterated this information in an email to the resident. This was reasonable and set out clearly the situation and it appropriately directed the resident towards the contractor in relation to the fines.
21. The resident raised the same concerns again on 2 February 2023, where she reiterated that she thought the cameras were not in the correct position and that she was therefore receiving fines for parking in her own bay and that other users were parking in her bays and not getting fined. The evidence shows that the landlord did not provide a response until 11 April 2023. This delay was unreasonable and showed a lack of empathy with the resident’s situation.
22. Given that the resident, at this point, was consistently claiming that the parking contractor was incorrectly fining her and that other users were parking in her bays, it would have been useful for the landlord to have sought further clarification from the contractor or to have considered visiting the premises to inspect the camera location itself. Doing so would have enabled the landlord to satisfy itself that the contractor was undertaking its obligations correctly and that other scheme users were parking correctly but also may have reassured the resident that the system was working as it should.
23. Furthermore, internal emails shows that the landlord was going to ask the parking contractor for a photo highlighting the areas the camera covered to reassure the resident that it did cover both her parking bays. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not ask for this until 6 June 2023, 2 months after it had informed the resident it would do so. This is not appropriate and again highlighted a disregard to the situation the resident was in.
24. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2023. This was 29 working days after a response was due. Landlords need to ensure where complaint responses are late, they communicate such a delay to a resident to manage their expectations. However, the landlord acknowledged this delay in its complaint response and offered £50 compensation. This amount is reasonable and reflective of the failings in its complaint handling in this instance.
25. Overall, although the landlord sought assurances from its contractor that the camera was functioning correctly and covering all relevant bays, its communication did not meet the Ombudsman’s expected standards. Despite it providing some reassurance in the complaint response, there were instances where the resident received no reply. This lack of effective communication forced the resident to repeatedly seek a response. Additionally, while a landlord can rely on qualified contractors to perform their duties, the resident’s persistent claims that the cameras were malfunctioning warranted further investigation by the landlord to ensure the contractor was fulfilling its obligations properly, which it did not undertake.
26. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the parking enforcement at the scheme.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the parking enforcement at the scheme.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £100. This amount is to be paid less any amount previously paid and is made up of the following:
    1. £50 for its failing in responding to the resident’s concerns about parking.
    2. £50 for its complaint handling.
29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

30. The landlord should consider contacting its parking contractor to confirm it has all parking bays correctly identified. It should also consider issuing a reminder letter to all residents that residents can only park in the bays for which they have a permit and reminding them of the importance of ensuring all permits need to be renewed annually.