Flagship Housing Group Limited (202324646)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324646

Flagship Housing Group Limited

12 March 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 request for a designated car parking space for emergency vehicles.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy started in March 2010.

Summary of events

3. The residential block the resident lives in originally had an ambulance bay in the carpark. At this time, the property was a warden managed sheltered scheme. However, the property was changed to a general needs property in 2018. As such, following feedback from residents it identified that the carpark was not user friendly. Also, as there were more residents with vehicles there was not enough carparking spaces. Taking this into account, the landlord changed the carpark layout in October 2018 following a period of consultation with existing residents.
4. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 24 April 2023. The resident said that she and other residents had requested yellow lines and a sign to request no parking in the parking bay outside the front door of the property. She said the landlord would not do this because of the cost involved. Further, the landlord had increased the rent, but it did not want to keep its elderly residents safe.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 May 2023. The landlord said:
   1. It visited the resident’s property and took pictures of the car park.
   2. It encourages residents to be mindful of others when they park as there are ample spaces for parking, both inside the car park and on the street in the area. This allows for access to emergency vehicles and any equipment that may be required to be used by paramedics as there are several access points to the building.
   3. It is unable to enforce parking in the area, this was why the decision was taken not to paint the car park bays or put up signs.
   4. It carries out a range of duties at the resident’s property and it is reasonable for the landlord’s staff to park in the car park while they carry them out.
6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 June 2023 when the landlord visited the resident’s property. The resident said she and other residents had raised this many times. She said there was a dropped curb outside the entrance, but people parked there including the landlord. As such, emergency vehicles could not swing into the entrance. The resident explained that 3 people in the previous 3 weeks had to go to hospital but the ambulance could not enter or exit the building with the stretcher. The resident reported that the landlord’s vans took up multiple space which meant that elderly residents, their visitors, and carers could not get a space.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 June 2023. The landlord said:
   1. It understood the resident’s concerns about the car park layout, and it agreed that the drop kerb in one of the parking spaces was confusing.
   2. The property was no longer a care provision, so the accommodation was classed as a general needs property. Therefore, it did not have an obligation to install a separate ambulance bay within the car park.
   3. It did not have any concern that an ambulance service could not access the property in an emergency. It confirmed that there was enough space in the car park for an ambulance to park safely and as close to the building as possible.
8. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident is wanting the landlord to paint yellow lines on the dropped kerb. This would ensure that emergency services can park in the car park.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The landlord’s records show that the resident had first asked the landlord in 2022 to add yellow lines to one of the spaces in the carpark to make it designated for emergency vehicles. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised such issues as a formal complaint within 12 months. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been considered within this report. Therefore, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an emergency service parking space from May 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated car parking space for emergency vehicles

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that no residents or member of their household or visitor should leave or permit to be left any motor or other vehicle or article so that the vehicular or pedestrian access to the property is restricted.
11. The landlord’s neighbourhood standard states that where parking facilities are available it will confirm who can park there. It also says that parking areas will be well lit, maintained, and each parking space would be clearly marked. The landlord’s policy does not set any requirement for emergency vehicle parking facilities.
12. In this case, the resident has previously requested that the landlord paint double yellow lines to a parking bay to create a designated space for emergency service vehicles. The resident reported that ambulances were experiencing delays in attending to residents due to the lack of designated parking. The resident raised further concerns in April 2023 and also requested a sign to alert other resident’s not to park in the bay.
13. The landlord was proactive in response to the resident’s concerns. It attended the property in May 2023 and completed an inspection. The inspection found that it had a sign which advised that the carpark was for residents only. It also attended the resident’s property in June 2023 and completed a walk around the carpark with the resident. The records show that the landlord explained to the resident that an emergency vehicle space was not required. It also confirmed that as the property was no longer warden based it no longer needed a specified emergency vehicles bay.
14. Additionally, it said it was not required as there was space for an emergency vehicle to safely enter and leave the carpark. Also, there was space in the carpark for an emergency vehicle to park in a bay as there was sufficient spaces. Further to this, it had checked and found no evidence that it had received any concerns from any emergency service regarding access.  The landlord’s actions were reasonable, and customer focused as it showed it had taken into account the resident’s views. It took appropriate action in checking its records to ensure that no concerns had been raised by emergency services. Further, by attending the property it ensured that emergency vehicles were not hindered entering the property and its carpark.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 25 May 2023 the landlord explained that it was unable to enforce parking in the area. Due to this, it was unable to add yellow lines or a sign. This was reasonable as the landlord provided clear reasoning as to why it was not proportionate action for it to take.
16. This Service recognises that the matter remains a concern to the resident. Particularly, as she has explained to the landlord that due to her health conditions she may need an ambulance. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
17. The landlord’s complaint responses provided clear explanations, reasoning for its decision to not add a designated space for emergency vehicles. Its actions were customer focused as the landlord showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously which was reasonable. Taking this into account, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a designated car parking space for emergency vehicles. It was also in line with its policy which does not state an emergency bay is required.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request. for a designated car parking space for emergency vehicles.