London Borough of Hackney (202001866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001866

London Borough of Hackney

7 December 2020

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 response to a report of vandalism of the resident’s vehicle and her subsequent request for a garage.

Background

Policies and procedures

2. The resident’s handbook explains how a resident can apply for a parking space or garage, although these are not guaranteed.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, whereby it aims to provide a response to a complaint within an average of 15 working days at stage one and within an average of 20 working days at stage two.

Summary of events

4. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 1 December 2003, when she commenced on an introductory tenancy.  She is now a secure tenant. The property is on an estate, where there are general use parking bays which are available on a “first come, first serve” basis and there is the option of parking on the street nearby. There are underground garages on the estate, although none were available at the time of the complaint.
5. In November 2019, the resident’s vehicle was vandalised and she then emailed the landlord on several occasions requesting a garage to park her car. In the landlord’s response of 11 November 2019, it advised her how to make an application for a garage. The resident did this on 12 November 2019. Meanwhile, the police had closed the case due to a lack of evidence.
6. On 13 November 2019, the resident asked the landlord to provide her with a safe parking space, “take all necessary steps to stop crime”, install street cameras, and facilitate the police in catching the criminals. She said that the police had done nothing.
7. On an unknown date, the landlord telephoned the resident and advised that there were no garages in her preferred area, although there was one available elsewhere. The resident was not willing to accept this as it was half a mile away and inconvenient. The landlord advised that it was rare for garages to come available in her area and that waits can be up to five years or more. It therefore advised that it would hold a garage for her at the alternative location if she changed her mind.
8. On 22 November 2019, the resident provided a crime reference number to the landlord, in respect of the vandalism to her vehicle. On the same date, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord not having provided her with a garage to park. In the landlord’s response of 26 November 2019, it reiterated that there were currently no garages available. It explained that the garages were taken out of commission when external works to the block commenced the previous year and a residents meeting had agreed that use of the temporary parking area was to be limited to people who were renting a garage at the time. It was in the process of making enquires about the location of the individual who the resident had said damaged her vehicle, to ascertain whether any action could be taken.  It suggested that the resident may wish to install CCTV in her vehicle, in order to detect any criminal activity.
9. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 16 December 2019, advising that it could not investigate criminal damage as this was a matter for the police. Further, whilst the individual the resident had identified as being the perpetrator of the vandalism lived in the borough, they were not a tenant of the landlord. In the resident’s response of 26 December 2019, she stated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s inaction following her car being vandalised. In particular, she referred to not being granted a garage, the landlord taking no action to find the perpetrator and there being no CCTV or police officers on the streets.
10. The resident chased up her complaint on 2 January 2020 and the landlord issued its complaint response on 14 January 2020. It did not uphold the complaint, reiterating its previous assertions that: it was not able to take action against a non-tenant, criminal damage was a matter for the police, and there was no garage available at that time. However, it advised that there may be a garage available on a nearby estate and provided her with the email address to contact if she wished to enquire.
11. On 18 January 2020, the resident requested a review of her complaint. She felt she was being discriminated against, as her neighbour had been offered a garage to store his van which contained tools. She added that the landlord had ignored her and the safeguarding issue she was reporting and gave the address of the alleged perpetrator. The landlord then emailed the resident on 23 January 2020, seeking to discuss the matter with her, but she declined stating that the landlord should do its “box ticking exercise and issue a response”.
12. In the landlord’s stage two response of 28 January 2020, it again did not uphold the complaint, reiterating that the matter of vandalism to her vehicle was a criminal matter which should be reported to the police and was not a matter for the landlord to resolve. It had offered her an alternative location to park her car, which she had declined, and it had explained that there were no secure garages available on the estate. It advised that it could not comment on individual cases, in respect of the resident stating that her neighbour had been given a garage.

Assessment and findings

13. The landlord was not obliged to offer the resident a garage upon her application, irrespective of circumstances, as a garage is not included in the tenancy agreement and is not an automatic right. Although the resident’s application was made under difficult circumstances, following vandalism of her vehicle, this did not alter the landlord’s position, or obligations, in that regard.
14. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident to complete an application form and, despite the resident chasing, it did so in a reasonable period of time. Thereafter, the landlord advised that it was unable to offer the resident a garage as there were none available. It explained the reasons for the unavailability of the garage and offered an alternative solution, which was reasonable as it was not required to provide other options. In doing so, it demonstrated its willingness to support the resident in finding a solution to her concern about her vehicle being damaged again.
15. Whilst the alternative garage was some distance away, the landlord could not do anything about the fact that there was no closer availability. The resident’s assertion that the landlord was discriminating against her was based on the fact that a neighbour had been offered a garage. It is not the role of this Service to investigate whether the neighbour has been offered a garage and, if so, when and the reasons for this. Instead, it is for the Ombudsman to ascertain how the landlord responded to the resident’s request and subsequent complaint and whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
16. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman of discriminatory practice on the part of the landlord; it received the resident’s application, could not accommodate a garage because there were none available and accordingly advised her of this.  It is unfortunate, but there is nothing further the landlord can do.
17. Turning to the vandalism itself, this is a criminal matter and therefore, a matter for the police. Whilst it was prudent of the resident to report the matter to the landlord, as well as the police, the landlord was not able to take action in respect of the vandalism. Not only was the alleged perpetrator not a tenant of the landlord (despite living in the same borough), there was no evidence besides anecdotal of the vandalism being caused by this individual. As a result, the landlord was also unable to act. Had the individual been a tenant of the landlord and there was evidence of him vandalising the property of another tenant, the landlord may have been able to take tenancy action against him, for example, issuing a warning about his behaviour, but these are not the circumstances of this case.
18. The resident’s assertions that there is not enough CCTV in the streets and there are not enough police patrolling, are not matters for the landlord. Even when a landlord is also a local authority, the matter the resident complains of concerns local government and she is at liberty to complain about this through the correct channels if she so wishes. However, as the matter is not related to housing functions, it is not a matter for this Service. 
19. In terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, it responded to the complaint at stages one and two of its complaints procedure, within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with its policy. Its communication and expectation management were appropriate; it responded in a timely manner; and was clear about the situation and what it could and could not do. Its efforts to discuss the situation with the resident demonstrated its wish to maintain the landlord-tenant relationship and satisfactorily resolve the complaint. There is a reasonable expectation on a complainant to engage with the process and in refusing to cooperate by way of speaking with the landlord about her concerns, she did not do this. 

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

21. The landlord was not obliged to provide a garage to the resident and, in any event, no garage was available. Its offer of alternative solutions to parking was reasonable. In terms of the vandalism itself, this was a criminal matter which should be investigated by the police. Additionally, the alleged perpetrator was not a tenant of the landlord and so, even if police action were taken, the landlord had no jurisdiction to act.