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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202206901)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206901

Hyde Housing Association Limited

31 May 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for a parking bay.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured resident of the landlord since April 2018. The property is a 2 bed flat situated in a block of 57 flats. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord said there are 11 parking bays available at the scheme, which residents can apply for. It said there is also an additional parking space for contractors.
  2. The landlord said the resident is disabled with arthritis, back and hip pain and suffers with mental health. She has a blue badge and is in receipt of PIP.
  3. On 14 December 2020, the landlord informed the resident it did not have a record of her application for parking bays at the scheme. The landlord provided the resident with an application, which she returned with missing information. It is unclear whether the resident responded to the landlord’s request for the missing information and finalised her application.
  4. Between July 2021 and July 2022, the resident made several enquires with the landlord about the parking bays at the scheme. The landlord responded to her queries, provided updates on the waiting list, reiterated its procedure for allocating parking bays and investigated allegations of misuse of the bays by other residents. The landlord also responded to the resident’s representatives, who made queries on her behalf.
  5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 July 2022. She explained that she was disabled and could not walk more than 20 metres without having to stop. She said that she had applied for a parking bay at the scheme but was turned down. She believed that the decision not to allow her a parking bay was “unfair and unreasonable in the light of her disability”.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 9 September 2022. She said the landlord had not responded to her stage 1 complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on the same day and requested that it issued its stage 1 response to the resident.
  7. The landlord issued it stage 1 response on 26 September 2022. It said that the resident applied for a parking bay in June 2021. It explained that it had not identified any failings in its allocation of the parking bays at the scheme, and it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord shared some information on its current waiting list for parking bays and some of the action it took to investigate the misuse of some of the parking bays by other residents. It also sent a copy of its parking information pack to the resident.
  8. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 12 October 2022. She disputed that she first applied for a parking bay in 2018. She explained that in 2021, the landlord informed her that it had no record of her application and she made a new one.
  9. On 18 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It issued its stage 2 response on 28 October 2022. It acknowledged that the resident said she applied for a parking bay in 2018, but it had no record of this. It said that when it investigated this, it asked the resident for a copy of her first application but she was unable to provide evidence she had applied prior to 2021. It confirmed that it reviewed the waiting list for parking bays and other residents had similar needs to the resident.
  10. Additionally, in its stage 2 response, the landlord also shared alternative solutions it had explored to resolve the matter. For example, it considered expanding the car park but there was no suitable land available. It also said that it had previously advised the resident to contact the council for assistance as a blue badge holder. It confirmed that it had also brought her case to them and asked whether they could help the resident with options to park locally. It concluded that it had not identified any failings in its response to her request for a parking bays and because of this, it did not uphold her complaint.
  11. The resident informed this service on 8 November 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She explained that, to resolve her complaint, she wanted the landlord to allocate her a parking bay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said she made an application for a parking bay in April 2018 and the landlord had lost it. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the rules which governs our service, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. In this case, no evidence was seen that, prior to July 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her application and request for a parking bay. Therefore, in keeping with the Scheme, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will primarily focus on events from July 2021 onwards.

The resident’s request for a parking bay.

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident would benefit from having a parking bay close to where she lives. We understand that the resident’s health and disabilities impact on her mobility and her ability to walk further than 20 metres.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord and the resident disagree on when the resident’s first applied for a parking bay. The evidence did not show  that, prior to December 2020, any communications had taken place between the parties on the subject. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in processing the resident’s application for a parking bay in 2018.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that in December 2020, when the resident made a query to the landlord about parking bays, it immediately informed her that it had no record of her application and it sent her an application form. This was reasonable from the landlord. The evidence shows that the resident started the application process, but it is unclear if this was completed at the time. However, the evidence shows that by September 2021, the landlord and the resident were discussing her place on the waiting list. The landlord confirmed that the resident was on the waiting list for a parking bay.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that the exact date the resident was accepted on the waiting list is unclear. It is also unclear whether any failures in processing the resident’s application form would have resulted in the resident ‘missing out’ on a parking bay. This is because the Ombudsman does not have information and details of other resident on the waiting list or their individual circumstances.
  5. The landlord said that it provided its parking information pack to the resident when she started her tenancy and again at its stage 1 response. In this pack, the landlord acknowledges that there are a small number of parking bays available to residents. It describes the process for applying and allocating parking bays at the scheme. It states that it allocates parking based on residents’ needs and priority:
    1. Priority 1: disabled occupants with a valid blue badge.
    2. Priority 2: Residents who have no blue badge but have a medical need for a local parking space. Residents will be required to provide evidence from a doctor to show how an ongoing medical condition is affecting their mobility.
    3. Priority 3: Households with two or more children under age 5
    4. Priority 4: Households with four or more children whatever the age.
  6. Additionally, the pack also contains information on local public transport and parking in the local area. The landlord provided relevant and useful information to the resident on the process and effectively managed her expectations. It also provided alternative solutions to park and useful information for residents to consider. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord provided reasonable explanations to the resident when she queried the allocation of specific bays. The landlord demonstrated that, prior to her complaint and in both its stage responses, it had explained to the resident how it allocated parking bays at the scheme. For example, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord in January 2022, and asked about the parking allocation at the scheme. The landlord provided a timely response and explained its process for allocating spaces. During the same period, the landlord also reassured the resident, several times, that it had followed process whilst allocating the parking bays at the scheme. Those were reasonable and proportionate explanations form the landlord. No evidence was seen that the landlord had failed to allocate parking bays based on residents’ priorities as per its parking allocation procedure.
  8. Since July 2021, the resident reported several concerns about the misuse of parking bays by residents. For example, in September 2021, the resident informed the landlord that non-residents were using the parking bays. The landlord investigated and confirmed to the resident that the cars she was concerned about, were authorised to park in the allocated bays. This was reasonable from the landlord, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, investigated the matter and shared its findings with her.
  9. The landlord also demonstrated that it recognised the impact the lack of parking had and was sympathetic to the resident’s circumstances. It showed that it explored other avenues such as extending the car park and reaching out to the council for support in finding a solution. These were reasonable steps from the landlord. It demonstrated that it understood the issue, the impact on the resident and it took reasonable steps to explore solutions.
  10. The Ombudsman recognises that the lack of parking close to her home is having a significant impact on the resident. It is not disputed that the resident would benefit from being able to park close to her home. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  11. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident. It provided her with timely and relevant information. It also  provided reasonable explanations for its actions in its responses to her queries. Additionally, whilst it is acknowledged that the resident and landlord dispute when the resident first applied for her parking bay, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord failed to process her application as per its procedure. Therefore, after considering the facts of the case, the Ombudsman determined that there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a parking bay.

The associated complaint.

  1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord‘s response to her request for a parking space, and in July 2022, she made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. However, in this case, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint prior to the resident contacting this Service for support in September 2022.This delay was unreasonable from the landlord. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint policy. Its failings caused inconvenience to the resident who had to request support from this Service to receive a response to her complaint.
  2. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days or speak to the resident if it requires longer. The Ombudsman recognises that following the intervention of this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days. However, it should not take for this service to become involved for the landlord to handle complaints in accordance with its policy. Based on when the resident made her complaint, the landlord’s stage 1 response was 38 working days outside its published timeframe. The landlord did not demonstrate that it communicated with the resident on its delay in responding. This was unfair to the resident who was left with no answer to her complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord issued its stage 2 response within its published time scale. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. In this case, in keeping with its policy, it issued its stage 2 response within 8 working days, which was reasonable. It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged the resident request’s to escalate her complaint 2 days outside its published timeframe. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that this impacted on the resident.
  4. Overall, there was service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to her stage 1 complaint in accordance with its policy. In addition, it did not identify its complaint handling failings. The landlord’s failings caused the resident some inconvenience and she had to request support from this service to receive a stage 1 response from her landlord.
  5. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, published on this Service’s website, the Ombudsman has determined that compensation of £75 is appropriate in this case. This also reflects the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It reflects that the resident spent time and effort seeking a response to her complaint and asked the Ombudsman to intervene.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the request for a parking bay.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £75 compensation directly to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by its failings to handle her complaint as per its policy.