Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202302842)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302842

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

22 July 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 the resident’s parking permit.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupies a 2-bedroom flat. She has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord that commenced on 7 December 2022. The property has a communal car park. The car park is owned by an independent third party and is subject to a parking enforcement scheme. The parking enforcement scheme is managed by a parking enforcement agency (‘enforcement agency’) that is authorised by the car park owner. The landlord is authorised by the car park owner to issue permits to its residents to enable them to park without charge.
4. The resident moved into her property in February 2022. The landlord initially said it issued the resident with a parking permit in April 2022. The resident received three car parking fines on 23 February 2022, 1 March 2022 and 5 March 2022. The fines were issued by the enforcement agency for parking in the communal car park without a permit. The enforcement agency informed the resident that it intended to pursue legal action if she did not make payment of the fines in full.
5. On 9 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord because she believed it had a contractual relationship with the enforcement agency. She asked the landlord to have the legal action and the fines dropped. The landlord said it liaised with the parking company on 27 October 2022 on the resident’s behalf and negotiated a settlement. The settlement was the claim would be withdrawn if the resident paid the parking agency £100 before the court date. The resident did not pay the reduced fine and the matter went to court.
6. The resident raised a complaint on 7 March 2023 because the landlord had delayed issuing her parking permit. She said this had resulted in three fines and legal action against her. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the full costs of the legal claim which was £666.56 and provide her with evidence of it contacting the enforcement agency to explain she had a relevant tenancy.
7. On 20 March 2023, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 because it said it had delayed issuing the resident’s permit. It also said:
   1. it had contacted the enforcement agency on her behalf and had the fines reduced but the resident refused to pay the reduced amount
   2. had the resident paid the reduced rate it had negotiated then proceedings would not have escalated to court and the fines would not have increased
   3. it would reimburse the resident £100 based on the settlement it had previously arranged with the parking agency, once it received evidence the fines had been paid
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 March 2023. She said:
   1. she was not told about the settlement the landlord had negotiated until February 2023
   2. she would cease paying her rent to cover the value of the fine
   3. she wanted the landlord to instruct the enforcement agency to withdraw the case
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2023. It said:
   1. it recognised the resident appealed against the parking charges through the parking enforcement agency, but this was rejected
   2. it re-iterated it had negotiated a settlement figure of £100 and told her this over the phone in October 2022 and through an email in February 2023
   3. the court case was a private matter between the resident and the enforcement agency and confirmed it did not have a contractual relationship with the enforcement agency
   4. if the resident did not pay her rent, this could result in rent arrears which could be escalated and signposted her to its rent department for advice and guidance
   5. it offered the resident £230 compensation made up of:
      1. £180 to cover the three parking fines received at the value they were initially issued (£60)
      2. £50 for its service failure for the delay in issuing the resident’s parking permit
10. As part of the landlord’s evidence request to this service in October 2023, it said that it had located evidence that showed it had issued the resident with a parking permit on 30 January 2022. It said that the operative responsible for issuing the parking permit had left the organisation when it was investigating the matter and it had not seen this evidence when it issued its complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident said the landlord’s delay resulted in the enforcement agency issuing her with three fines. She explained that she wanted the landlord to reimburse her for her full cost of the legal action which included the payment of the fines.
12. Paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. “
13. The enforcement agency is not a member of the Scheme. The Ombudsman may not consider any complaint that is not about a member of the Scheme. Further, it is important to note that the landlord and the enforcement agency do not have a contractual relationship and the enforcement agency is not acting on behalf of the landlord concerning its housing activities. Therefore, the acts and/or omissions of the enforcement agency do not fall within the remit of this service, and this includes the fines and the legal proceedings that were issued against the resident.
14. When the enforcement agency issued legal proceedings against the resident, the County Court entered a judgment against the resident for the full costs associated with the claim. This means the court decided on the liability of the resident for the fines.
15. Paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or where the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.”
16. The Ombudsman’s role is an alternative dispute resolution service and does not have the authority to overturn a decision made by a court of law. For clarity, we are unable to comment on issues where a court has made a judgement on the merits of a case against a resident.
17. This investigation will only look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her parking permit. The question is whether the landlord acted reasonably in all the circumstances. Therefore, the report will not form an opinion on any aspect of the legal claim against the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking permit

18. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not grant any rights to a car parking space to the resident.
19. The landlord wrote to all the residents on 24 January 2022 explaining that fines would be enforced by the enforcement agency from 1 February 2022. It also said:
    1. it was the administrator for purposes of issuing and cancelling the relevant parking permits
    2. it invited residents to request a parking permit and gave details about how to do this
    3. it would go to the estate to deliver parking permits in person on 28 January 2022 and 31 January 2022
20. The Ombudsman considers the landlord took appropriate action to notify the residents of changes that would impact their use of the car park.
21. The question for the Ombudsman is whether the landlord issued the resident’s parking permit within a reasonable time. To determine this the Ombudsman would need to verify:
    1. when the resident requested her parking permit
    2. when the resident received her parking permit
22. The landlord’s records indicated the resident applied for her parking permit on 28 January 2022 and the landlord issued the parking permit on 30 January 2022.
23. The resident said she had not received a parking permit before April 2022. There is no evidence that the resident told the landlord that she was without a parking permit before 9 August 2022.
24. The Ombudsman considers the spreadsheet alone did not verify:
    1. the resident applied for her parking permit on 28 January 2022
    2. the parking permit was issued by the landlord on 30 January 2022
25. On this basis, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord failed to provide the resident with a parking permit or draw a meaningful conclusion regarding any delay that may or may not have been experienced by the resident.
26. Importantly, as there is no established legal right for the resident to use the car park, there is no obligation on the landlord to issue a parking permit for this. This is because the landlord was aware that its asset did not come with adequate parking facilities to accommodate all residents. Although the Ombudsman recognises the landlord can issue parking permits, it is not required to do this. On this basis, the Ombudsman is unable to identify a failure in this respect that the landlord is responsible for.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states:
    1. landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 of the complaint process within 10 working days of logging the complaint
    2. landlords must respond at stage 2 of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated
28. The landlord’s complaint policy mirrors the timeframes in the Code.
29. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint as follows:
    1. within 9 working days at stage 1
    2. within 19 working days at stage 2
30. The evidence shows the landlord acted within its policy timeframes at both stages of its complaint procedure when it responded to the resident. This was appropriate.
31. The landlord offered redress as detailed in paragraph 9e of this report. This was based on its position at the time, namely, it had delayed in issuing the resident’s parking permit. The landlord apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
32. Overall, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations under the Code and its complaints policy because at the time it identified a failure, it tried to put things right. Therefore, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s request for a parking permit.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.