From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202327175)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327175

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
    1. The resident’s request for a parking bay.
    2. Staff use of visitor bays.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She is also disabled. On 19 June 2023 she asked the landlord to allocate 1 of the 3 parking bays immediately outside her property. The landlord advised her it was “reviewing” the parking bays so would not allocate any at this stage. However, it sent her a link she could use to periodically check for new spaces, and also advised her to enquire with the local authority.
  2. On 17 July 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to allocate her a parking bay despite her disability. She also complained that landlord staff were incorrectly parking their vehicles in visitor bays.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2023. It advised that its staff were permitted to make use of visitor parking bays when necessary for repairs. It advised the resident that it could allocate her a dedicated parking bay as a disabled resident, but that this would need to be recommended by an Occupational Therapist. Otherwise, it advised that parking bays were allocated on a first come first serve basis, and that new bays would be open for applications by 18 August 2023.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2023. She complained that no parking bays had appeared on the landlord’s website. She also complained that landlord staff were using the visitor bays for more than just repairs.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 October 2023. It repeated the explanations offered at stage 1. It apologised that it had not uploaded new parking bays for applications within the timescales it committed to. It apologised for this and a delayed stage 2 response, and offered £50 compensation for each failing. It also advised that new bays would appear online by the end of the month.
  6. On 6 October 2023 the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. To resolve things, she advised that she wanted the landlord to limit staff use of visitor bays and allocate her a parking bay. On 11 December 2023 the landlord uploaded a new bay, and the resident successfully applied for it. The landlord then allocated it to her on 11 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for a parking bay.

  1. The landlord’s policy on parking bays states it allocates them on a first–come first–serve basis.
  2. The resident complains that the landlord should have prioritised her for a parking bay due to her disability, and that it took an unreasonable amount of time for her to eventually secure a bay. While we recognise the resident’s frustration, the landlord was not obligated to prioritise her in this way. Furthermore, we can see it advised her at both complaint stages that she could use visitor bays free of charge by displaying a blue badge. We consider the landlord acted positively by repeating this advice this to try and mitigate the impact of the parking situation on the resident while she was without an allocated bay.
  3. The landlord also signposted the resident to the Occupational Therapy (OT) services to enquire about a possible referral related to her described need for a parking bay. It explained that if an OT recommended that the resident needed this it would consider providing a bay. This advice was correct, and the landlord acted positively here by ensuring the resident was informed of the options available to her beyond competing with other residents for bays when they appear online.
  4. However, we can see the landlord repeatedly failed to upload new bays on its website by the deadlines it committed to. In its stage 1 it assured the resident new bays would appear by 18 August 2023, and then failed to upload these or communicate with the resident about the delay. In its stage 2 it advised she would be able to apply to new bays by the end of October 2023. It then failed to upload these until 11 December 2023, and failed to communicate with the resident during this delay.
  5. We can see the landlord has sought to remedy its failure to meet the 18 August 2023 timescales by offering the resident £50 compensation. Its compensation policy states it will pay discretionary sums of £50 to £250 to put things right when its own service failure has caused distress and inconvenience, but where this impact is not significant or long term.
  6. We recognise that this omission likely caused the resident some impact. However, this impact likely did not go further than some minor frustration and inconvenience. With this in mind, we consider the landlord was correct to offer compensation at the lower end of its scale as redress. Therefore, we consider the landlord has done enough to remedy its failure to upload new bays within the timescales it committed to at stage 1.
  7. However, the landlord has not remedied its failure to meet the timescales it committed to at stage 2. The landlord also left the resident in the dark about any progress with new bays from 31 October 2023 to 11 December 2023. We consider this likely caused the resident distress, and that this was compounded by the repeated nature of the failing. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident a further £100 to put this right.

How the landlord handled staff use of visitor bays.

  1. The resident complains that the landlord failed to suitably address her reports that its staff were using visitor bays which made it difficult for her to find parking before she secured her own bay.
  2. The landlord addressed these reports at stages 1 and 2 of the complaint process. At both stages it advised that its staff were permitted to use visitor parking bays when completing repairs in the area. It also encouraged the resident to provide photographic evidence of any vehicles which she considered were using the bays inappropriately. It seems reasonable that it may be necessary for staff to use the visitor bays in order to fulfil the landlord’s repairs obligations. Therefore, we consider this advice was reasonable.
  3. We can see that the resident supplied the landlord with photos in September 2023 of 1 of its vehicles using a disabled bay without any visible blue badge. Following this we can see that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and identified the staff member whose vehicle it was. It discussed this with the staff member and remined them to ensure their blue badge was visible in future. It then explained these actions to the resident. We consider this was a proportionate and reasonable approach by the landlord to address this specific allegation.
  4. In her escalation request of 22 August 2023 the resident complained about a specific member of staff’s use of a bay outside her property. At stage 2 the landlord advised that it had been unable to come to any conclusions based on the resident’s 22 August 2023 report as it did not employ anyone matching her description of the staff member. There is no objective evidence available for us to corroborate the resident’s account here. On this basis, we cannot reasonably expect the landlord to have done anymore to address this allegation.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy obliges it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and address them within 10 working days. It is obliged to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within the same timeframe and address them within 20 working days. When it is not possible to meet these timescales, the landlord is to explain this to the resident and provide updated timescales.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was late by 7 working days, and its stage 2 response by 12 working days. In both cases it failed to inform the resident about the delay. It has offered the resident £50 for its late stage 2 response. Based on the relatively minor length of the delay, and the landlord’s compensation guidance, we consider this is sufficient redress. However, it has not acknowledged its late stage 1 response. Therefore, we will order it pays the resident a further £50 to put this right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. How the landlord handled the resident’s requests for a parking bay.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled staff use of visitor bays.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £150, comprised of:
    1. £100 for its failure to meet its stage 2 timescales for uploading new parking bays.
    2. £50 for its delayed stage 1 response.
  2. This is in addition to the £100 already offered to the resident at stage 2, which the landlord should pay the resident if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.