From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

LiveWest Homes Limited (202327497)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327497

LiveWest Homes Limited

13 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:
    1. Monitoring and management of a communal car park used by the resident.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a block of 4. Following a merger, the landlord assumed legal ownership of the property. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities.
  2. On 23 August 2023 the resident reported abandoned vehicles in the communal car park owned by the landlord.
  3. On 2 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said it had not taken sufficient steps to remove the vehicles and he remained concern about the management and monitoring of the car parking situation.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 October 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 9 October 2023. It said that:
    1. it had taken time to identify the owners of the vehicles
    2. it was working with its parking management company to gather evidence
    3. it had taken action to address the unroadworthy vehicles, using tenancy and lease conditions and its policies and procedures
    4. its parking management company continued to patrol and monitor the situation in unmarked vehicles
    5. its parking management company continued to issue tickets when vehicles did not hold a valid parking permit
    6. it was addressing the parking concerns but partially upheld his complaint due to its initial communication
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 October 2023. He said he remained unhappy that the landlord had not initially discussed the parking issues with him. He considered it had not enforced its abandoned car policy. He asked for better communication and a copy of the landlord’s abandoned car policy.
  6. The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 and 14 November 2023 and sent its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. It explained that:
    1. it no longer had a live abandoned vehicle procedure due to changes to the Social Housing Act 2023
    2. it was reviewing its policies and procedures to reflect regulations coming in from April 2024
    3. the cars he had reported were unroadworthy rather than abandoned which changed what action it could take
    4. any enforcement action it took was a matter between it and the vehicle owners
    5. it continued to work with its parking management company, who continued to monitor and sticker vehicles
    6. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint but offered £25 compensation for its failure to discuss matters with him at stage 1
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the landlord had not adhered to its abandoned car policy and wanted it to improve its monitoring of the car park.

Assessment and findings

Monitoring and management of a communal car park used by the resident

  1. The resident’s tenancy conditions show no provision for an allocated parking space. Nor does its show that he pays a service charge to use the communal car park.
  2. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it may appoint a reputable company to operate a parking scheme.
  3. The landlord described the car park as a communal space of approximately 10 parking bays. Its residents are able to use the car park on a first come, first served basis.
  4. The evidence shows the resident had reported instances of parking concerns from at least 2017. While each occurrence would understandably cause upset, the landlord has also demonstrated responding to him. It has demonstrated its shared frustrations and explained the difference between abandoned and unroadworthy vehicles. It also described the challenges of identifying vehicle owners when issues occur.
  5. Furthermore, between 2021 to 2023 there is evidence the landlord sought legal advice. It also introduced a car parking management service to monitor the facilities and issued parking permits at a cost of £25. It also painted white lines for each parking bay and designated space for disabled users. While the car park remained first come first served, this demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to introduce a system to assist with the identified issues. This was consistent with its neighbourhood management policy.
  6. The resident complained on 2 October 2023. He remained dissatisfied because the landlord had not removed vehicles that remained in the communal car park since 23 August 2023.
  7. Images provided by the landlord showed it had identified the vehicles. While the owners often parked the vehicles correctly, they did not move them which reduced the availability of spaces. The landlord explained to the resident that it had taken steps to identify and communicate with the owners. This demonstrated the landlord had attended, monitored, and acted on the resident’s concerns.
  8. In order to remove a vehicle, a landlord must first ensure it follows the appropriate legal steps and legislation. Without doing so, the landlord could itself break the law. It was appropriate for it to distinguish if the owners had abandoned the vehicles or if the vehicles were unroadworthy. This was appropriate as the landlord’s options are different in each case.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord had extensive communication with its legal advisors regarding the persistent parking issues. While the resident may have been dissatisfied that certain spaces were not available, there were legal considerations which the landlord had to adhere to.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 15 November 2023 reassured the resident that its parking management service continued to monitor the communal car park. It also explained it had identified the owners and confirmed they had valid parking permits.
  11. Given the resident’s health vulnerabilities, we understand that the parking behaviour of others would have been upsetting. As the owners of the vehicles were not moving them, it was reasonable for him to consider this unfair. However, the resident’s tenancy did not give him an automatic right to an allocated parking space. As such, the landlord was not failing to provide him with a service it was obliged to provide.
  12. During the landlord’s stage 2 investigation the resident requested a copy of its abandoned and untaxed vehicles procedure. He explained he had one sent in or around 2019 but could not find it.
  13. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to explain it was reviewing its policies and procedures due to regulation changes. It said these were in draft and awaiting governance approval. It was also reasonable for it to explain that older documents written before the merger were no longer applicable and that regulation changes would come into force from April 2024.
  14. We recognise in this case that the behaviours of others caused recurring upset by reducing the availability of, or access to, communal car parking. However, the landlord must gather evidence and take reasonable and proportionate action before attempting any legal enforcement. As the matter involved multiple vehicles, its situation required an individual response on each occasion.
  15. We find no maladministration by the landlord in its management of the communal car park. The landlord demonstrated changing the car parking process which required permits. It employed a parking management service which actively monitored and stickered offending vehicles. The landlord sought legal advice and took enforcement action where possible. It was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the steps it was taking without disclosing third party information.
  16. We note that the resident continues to report instances of parking issues beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with its revised 2024 abandoned and untaxed vehicles procedure.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 of its internal complaints process (ICP) within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 October 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 9 October 2023. These actions were appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s complaint policy response times.
  3. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it demonstrated it understood the resident’s complaint. It summarised the steps it and its parking management service had taken to address his concerns. It acknowledged that it had taken time to investigate matters and not fully discussed his concerns initially. It partially upheld his complaint.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the same day and sent its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. This demonstrated the landlord acted within its complaint policy response times.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response thanked the resident for speaking to it on 3 occasions between 6 October to 10 November 2023. Its efforts to communicate to support its investigation demonstrated it had learned from the findings of its stage 1 response.
  6. Furthermore, it offered the resident £25 compensation in recognition of its communication failures at stage 1. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
  7. When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  8. The landlord has shown it accepted that its communication fell short of its own expectations at stage 1. Its stage 2 response demonstrated learning from this and it offered £25 compensation. This was appropriate and consistent with our remedies guidance. We would therefore have made a finding of service failure but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s monitoring and management of a communal car park used by the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffer the resident £25 compensation for its complaint handling, if not already paid.
  2. We recommend the landlord sends the resident a copy of its revised 2024 abandoned and untaxed vehicles procedure.