Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202317067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317067

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

16 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 the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of issues with car parking.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom first-floor flat in a block. The tenancy started in November 2011. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord allows residents to use a car park which it owns, situated at the block. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. In contact with us in May 2025, the resident described experiencing a deterioration in her physical health. As such, she has secured a disabled parking badge due to mobility difficulties. She states the car parking difficulties and lack of disabled spaces is an increasing problem for her independence.
4. In May 2023 the resident contacted her member of parliament (MP) regarding parking issues where she lived. On 7 July 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord about the same issues. She described non-residents using the block’s car park which she considered unfair. The resident said she should not have to pay a grounds maintenance service charge for others to use the car park. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 July 2023.
5. On 9 August 2023 the resident complained again about difficulties parking. The resident was unhappy that the landlord said it was unable to police or enforce parking issues at the block.
6. On 18 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. And it sent its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. The landlord explained how it had erected ‘no parking’ signs to deter non-residents. It also said it had considered installing bollards or gates but concluded from previous experience that these options were not feasible. It acknowledged how the issue would be frustrating for the resident. And it reminded her it had no enforcement powers. The landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling delays.
7. The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She said the landlord had installed small signs and they did not say ‘no parking.’ The resident repeated she should not have to pay a grounds maintenance service charge due to these issues.
8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 September 2023. And sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. It said it:
   1. Understood how the issue would cause upset.
   2. Had installed new signs and accepted they actually said ‘parking for residents and authorised visitors’ rather than no parking.
   3. Would write to non-residents in the street asking them not to use the car park.
   4. Had considered and rejected the feasibility of gates and bollards based on cost and previous experience with vandalism and lost locks and keys.
   5. Understood the frustration with the lack of parking but had no enforcement capabilities.
9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said it was unfair that non-residents used the car park and that she paid a grounds maintenance service charge. The resident considered the landlord should reduce the service charge due to these issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement makes no provision for parking. And there are also no service charges attributed to parking in the car park. As such, the complaint does not extend to the occupation of the property set out in the tenancy agreement. The resolution of the parking issue is therefore outside of our jurisdiction. However, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
11. The resident’s complaint contains concerns regarding service charge costs. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. This falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
12. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure also investigated and responded to other issues. The resident’s complaint included issues about hedges, bins, and a cannabis odour from a neighbouring property. However, the resident has confirmed to us that she only considers the car parking issue to be outstanding. Therefore, these matters will not form part of our investigation, and we have focussed only on the landlord’s response to the resident’s car parking concerns.

Response to the resident’s reports to issues with car parking

13. The resident pays a weekly rent charge which includes a grounds maintenance service charge. The service charge is for the upkeep of external communal areas. The resident’s tenancy conditions show no provision for an allocated parking space. Nor does it show that she pays a service charge specifically to use the communal car park.
14. The landlord described the car park as a communal space that residents can use on a first come, first served basis. It confirmed that there are no designated parking spaces assigned to individual tenancies.
15. The evidence shows the resident raised repeat parking concerns to the landlord and her MP between April to August 2023. The landlord’s communication in this time reminded the resident that her grounds maintenance charge did not include parking. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustrations and also explained that it had no enforcement capabilities. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to manage the resident’s expectations.
16. While we note the resident considered the landlord had not spoken to her about her concerns, the landlord disputes this. The landlord’s internal communication states it had 9 emails on file between March to April 2023 where it had responded to the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, the landlord recorded meeting the resident to discuss her concerns on 28 March 2023, prior to its complaint responses.
17. There is evidence the landlord considered the resident’s reports and requests for bollards and or parking gates. It was reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord discussed the feasibility of these options internally. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff. In doing so, the landlord considered the opinions based on costs, maintenance, and previous unsuccessful installations. It also considered its experience of vandalism and difficulties managing such barriers when residents had lost locks or keys.
18. While the resident may have been unhappy with the landlord’s assessment of the situation, it demonstrated that it had considered her concerns and communicated its position to her. This was reasonable.
19. Following the resident’s complaints, the landlord installed new parking signs in August 2023. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to act on the resident’s concerns by deterring non-residents from using the car park.
20. Between August to September 2023 the landlord continued to communicate with the resident and the MP. The evidence shows it provided updates and reiterated that the resident did not pay for allocated parking. Furthermore, we note that the landlord’s stage 2 response informed the resident that it would write to non-residents within the area, asking them not to use the car park. It provided us evidence of such letters. This was a reasonable step to take and demonstrates the landlord’s attempts to minimise the problem.
21. As the owner of the land, the landlord can do with it as it pleases. It allows its residents to use the car park without additional charges. Regrettably, it is unable to enforce parking restrictions when non-residents behave inconsiderately. The landlord may wish to consult with all residents in the future regarding parking management arrangements, the need for disabled spaces, and any additional associated service charge costs. However, the resident seeks an outcome upon which we cannot decide.
22. Based on the evidence we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to this matter. While the landlord owns the land and allows residents to use it, parking enforcement is difficult. However, in this case the landlord demonstrated considering the feasibility of parking barriers, which it considered unsuitable based on its experience at other sites. It also kept the resident informed, installed signs, and wrote to non-residents in an attempt to deter them using the car park. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

23. The landlord operates a 2 stage internal complaints procedure. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the relevant Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on 1 April 2022.
24. The evidence shows the resident first complained on 7 July 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledge this within 5 working days. This was consistent with the Code.
25. However, it was not appropriate that the resident needed to complain again on 9 August 2023 as she had not received a response within 10 working days. This caused her time and trouble having to reraise the matter.
26. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 28 working days late. Furthermore, it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 4 days late. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
27. However, we note the landlord sent its stage 2 response on time. This was appropriate and consistent with the expectations of the Code.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged its complaint handling delays. It was appropriate for it to apologise and offer £50 compensation to put this right.
29. However, given there was a recurring failing with the landlord’s handling of the escalation, the landlord did not fully demonstrate learning from its stage 1 response.
30. While the detriment of the delayed escalation acknowledgement may have been minimal, we consider the recurring issue and lack of communication as service failure. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay a total sum of £75 compensation. We calculate this as £25 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays following her escalation request. And £50 offered by the landlord for the resident’s time and trouble caused by its stage 1 response delays. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports to issues with car parking.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £75 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord may deduct £50 offered within its stage 1 response if already paid.

Recommendations

34. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
35. We recommend the landlord considers consulting with all resident’s affected by the parking issues. This may inform its future car park management options and identify any need for disabled parking spaces.