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

Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202317683)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317683

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a designated parking space.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in October 1997, at which point the landlord was Colne Housing. In 2020 Colne Housing merged with Greenfields Community Housing to become Eastlight Community Homes Limited.
  2. The property is a 4-bedroom ground floor flat with adaptations designed for people with disabilities. The flat forms part of a complex of 10 flats, with a private resident’s car parking area.
  3. The resident, his wife and their daughter are all disabled and have mobility problems. The resident’s daughter uses a wheelchair. The landlord is aware of this.
  4. On 14 June 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his request for a parking space marked for the sole use of him and his household. The resident told the landlord that Colne Housing had told him that a particular space was designated for his use only.
  5. At both stage 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure the landlord said that it could not do what the resident asked because his tenancy agreement did not say he had allocated parking. The landlord proposed marking out the parking space as a disabled parking space that anyone with a disabled parking badge would be able to use.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and contacted this service on 13 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Parking space

  1. On 14 June 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord stating:
    1. Colne Housing told him in October 1997 that a particular space was designated for his use only, and had marked the space with his flat number and a sign showing it was for disabled people.
    2. He, his wife and their daughter were all disabled. His daughter needed to be helped in and out of the car by 2 people. The other parking spaces were not big enough and if someone else parked in ‘their’ space they would have to park on the drive, which would be inconvenient for them and the other residents.
    3. He suggested that the landlord contact former Colne Housing staff, whom he named, to confirm that they had been allocated the parking space, as he could not find his tenancy agreement.
  2. On 15 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had found his tenancy agreement on Colne Housing’s computer system, but this did not mention parking. Whilst it appreciated that at some point the flat number had been painted on the parking space in question, it had “no powers to enforce car parking.” It would mark the space as being for disabled people, but anyone with a valid disabled parking badge would be able to park there. If residents without a disabled badge parked there it would ask them not to.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 June 2023. It said that it recognised the importance of having a disabled parking space, and reiterated the same position as stated on 15 June 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the importance of parking for disabled residents and was willing to take steps to provide this.
  4. However, other than locating the resident’s tenancy agreement, the stage 1 response does not detail any further investigation made by the landlord into the matter. There is no evidence that the landlord looked for potential witnesses, even though the resident provided the names of staff who worked for Colne Housing. The landlord did not consider the evidence that the resident’s flat number had been painted on the parking space, or that the resident had been using the space for 26 years.
  5. The landlord also did not explain why it took the position that it had no powers to enforce car parking. It is the understanding of this Service that the car park was on private land owned by the landlord. On that basis it had a range of powers available to decide how to manage the car parking.
  6. Overall, the landlord did not provide a detailed explanation of why it did not accept that the resident had been told that he would have sole use of the parking space. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 8 August 2023, reiterating his position and giving more detailed information regarding his and his family’s disabilities. He said he and his family were “very worried about this,” and he would not have taken the flat were it not for the promise of the parking space.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 August 2023 said that it was unable to offer a dedicated parking space as there was “no paperwork to demonstrate this agreement.” It repeated that it was not able to enforce any car parking restrictions. It would repaint the disabled parking bay and install a signpost saying, “residents only disabled parking bay.” Whilst it is clear that the landlord was keen to agree a compromise that would be satisfactory for both parties, a lack of documentary evidence was not a strong enough reason for it not to provide a dedicated parking space.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 13 September 2023 and asked us to investigate. He wanted the landlord to allocate him the parking space for the length of his tenancy.
  10. The landlord’s internal correspondence for July and August 2024 shows that it had recently consulted with residents about parking arrangements and all had voted in favour of each flat having a designated parking space. The landlord had drawn up a plan and was waiting for a quote for the parking spaces to be painted. This was appropriate but too late. Had the landlord taken this step sooner it could have avoided the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  11. Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated parking space overall, whilst it accepted the importance of disabled parking, no evidence has been seen that it considered the needs of the resident and his household as individuals, and whether providing an allocated parking space would have been a reasonable adjustment. It is not evident that it carried out a full investigation into the history of the matter. There was an over-reliance on what was stated in the tenancy agreement, rather than considering what would have been reasonable overall. Whilst consulting with residents about the parking arrangements was an appropriate step, this happened too late. Cumulatively, this constitutes service failure on the part of the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 14 June 2023 and acknowledged by the landlord on 23 June 2023. This was 7 working days later and therefore not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, which stated that complaints would be acknowledged by email 1 working day after the complaint.
  2. The stage 1 response was provided on 26 June 2023, 1 working day after acknowledgement, and 8 working days after the complaint was initially made. This was within the policy target time. The response correctly defined the resident’s complaint, was sincere in tone, and showed empathy.
  3. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 on 7 August 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this by email on 11 August 2023. The state 2 response was provided on 23 August 2023, within the policy target time of 20 working days. The response correctly defined the resident’s complaint and the outcome sought. The tone was sincere and empathetic. The process to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman was clearly set out.
  4. Considering the landlord’s complaint’s handling overall, although the late acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1 is a shortcoming, this did not cause detriment to the resident. Therefore, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated parking space.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy to be provided to this Service.
    2. If it has not already done so, the landlord must mark out and clearly label the parking space for the sole use of the resident and his household.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for distress and inconvenience caused to him as a result of its poor handling of his request for a designated parking space.