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

LiveWest Homes Limited (202214073)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214073

LiveWest Homes Limited

25 February 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 reports of inappropriate parking.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat in a low-rise block with a communal car park at the rear. She has lived at the property since August 2014.
  2. The landlord has contracted a parking enforcement agency to penalise any parking violations at the car park. The parking agency issues residents with a parking permit. The landlord asks residents to report any issues with poor parking to the parking agency contractor, who issue fixed penalty notices.
  3. The resident complained on 25 November 2021. She was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the parking enforcement agency. She felt they were not attending regularly or checking the vehicles on site for permits. The contractor was not responding to/answering calls. The landlord had previously agreed to re-mark the parking bays and increase the number of patrols but this was outstanding.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2021. It did not uphold the complaint. It gave reasons for the delay in issuing its response. It investigated her reports over 10 days and found no evidence of parking infractions. The parking agency provided evidence that it was visiting the site regularly. It said the resident’s expectations were unreasonable.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint on 6 January 2022. She reiterated her concerns about the landlord’s management of the parking contractor. She highlighted a third party who she believed were responsible for frequent parking infractions. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 January 2022. It explained the actions it had taken to resolve the parking issues in accordance with its policy and procedures. It set out details of the visits by its parking contractor. It reiterated its concern that the resident’s expectations were unreasonable. It apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response, which it determined was 1 day late. It offered £100 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2022. In a discussion with the Ombudsman in February 2025, she said that the parking contractor is still attending in the mornings only. She said her desired outcome would be for the parking contractor to attend on evenings and weekends.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has previously investigated the landlord’s handling of inappropriate parking in June 2021 (202004014). That investigation focused on the complaints made by the resident between March and June 2020. We made recommendations for the landlord to monitor the actions taken by its parking management service to ensure it was efficient. This investigation has focused only on the reports made by the resident between November 2021 and January 2022.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate parking

  1. The landlord owns the land used for parking. It does not make any additional service charge to the resident and the tenancy does not stipulate the necessity for any parking provision. It is up to the landlord to determine how it manages its resources when enforcing any perceived misuse of the land.
  2. The landlord appropriately appointed a specialist parking agency to enforce its rules over the use of the land. This is a reasonable decision and reflects the landlord’s efforts to ensure proper use of the land for its residents. When asked by the landlord, the parking agency provided evidence that it issued 6 parking charge notices between October and December 2021. In addition to the parking enforcement agency, the landlord improved the markings on the land for parking and provided additional signs.
  3. Throughout the timeline of the complaint, the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact the parking issues had on the resident. It communicated with the third parties and acted where necessary.
  4. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord appropriately sought to manage the resident’s expectations. It was fair in its assertion that it had acted reasonably and taken proportionate action. It was appropriate to direct her to its parking agency to complain about their handling of her calls.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it acted on the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in June 2021. It sought monthly updates from its contractor in 2021 that showed it was frequently visiting the site in accordance with its contract.
  6. The log provided by the landlord in its stage 2 response shows that its parking agency attended the site frequently. Each visit was between 6.30am-3.30pm. It was appropriate to share this log to allay some of the resident’s concerns.
  7. The resident asserted that the parking agency were not attending at suitable times. The landlord reasonably explained why the parking agency were attending in accordance with its contract, and there was no failing. Additionally, its records show that it met with the parking agency in May 2022 who agreed to vary the times they would visit the site.
  8. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate parking. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate to the reports made by the resident. It took the resident’s reports seriously. It sought increased patrols from its contractor and asked for regular updates to ensure its service was efficient. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations. It took reasonable steps to enforce its parking restrictions and address disputes with offenders directly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of inappropriate parking.