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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348064)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348064

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

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

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a 2 bedroom house with a garage, under an assured tenancy which began on 5 March 2018.  
  2. On 27 February 2024 and 1 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that a neighbour was parking in a way which obstructed access to her garage and parking space. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 March 2024, to confirm it had spoken to the neighbour and asked them to move the vehicle.
  3. On 12 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone to report her ongoing concerns about parking. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 March 2024, to report again that the parking problem was continuing.
  4. On 22 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she had contacted the landlord several times, but she had not received a response to her call on 12 March 2024 regarding her concerns about parking.
  5. On 27 March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident by email to say it would carry out a site visit. It said it would then distribute a letter to residents advising them not to park in a way which would obstruct the road or block residents.
  6. On 28 March 2024, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said there were no parking regulations on the estate. It said the photographs provided by the resident did not appear to show that the resident was blocked in. It said as the resident was still experiencing nuisance parking, it would arrange to inspect the area to investigate further. It confirmed it would then issue a letter to all residents advising them to avoid parking in a way which caused obstruction to the road, or blocked other cars in.
  7. After its visit to the resident’s property on 10 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2024. It confirmed its conversation with the resident during the visit, and specified the areas where other residents should or should not be able to park their vehicles. It asked the resident to send photos of cars parked in the location it said would block her access, if it happened again. It said the next step would be to level out paving and paint hatching to deter parking in that area.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 19th April 2024. She told the landlord the neighbours continued to park where they should not.
  9. On 17 May 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It confirmed residents were able to park anywhere in the area so long as they were not causing an obstruction to others. The landlord said in its view, the photo evidence the resident had supplied did not show her vehicle was blocked in. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and said it believed it had handled her concerns satisfactorily. The landlord also said it found no complaint handling failures, other than the stage 1 response being late. It offered £20 compensation in recognition of the late response. 
  10. The resident confirmed that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed her concerns, and the parking issues continued. She said she wanted the landlord to permanently resolve the problems with parking in the area.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, which concluded with the landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 May 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. We are aware that a further formal complaint has been raised by the resident about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about parking since 17 May 2024.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents must not park in a way which blocks roadways, drives, footpaths or other vehicle or pedestrian access. It also says that residents must not double park or park in a way that obstructs other vehicles.
  2. The landlord’s Parking Allocation and Abandoned and Nuisance Vehicles Procedure outlines a number of reasons a vehicle may be classed as causing a nuisance. One of the reasons is when a vehicle is blocking or limiting the natural flow of traffic, garages or other parked vehicles.
  3. The procedure sets out the steps the landlord should take when a nuisance vehicle is reported to the landlord. The landlord is required to take full details and inspect the vehicle within 5 working days of the service request. The procedure says that if there is no parking enforcement in place on the estate, the landlord should consider introducing parking permits to deal with the nuisance. The landlord should also take enforcement action if appropriate.
  4. In this case, the resident raised concerns about a vehicle causing an obstruction to her access to her garage access and parking on 27 February 2024 and 1 March 2024. The records show the landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2024 and 1 March 2024 to ask for further details. It contacted the neighbour on 1 March 2024, to ask them to move the vehicle. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s report about being blocked in.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 March 2024 and 18 March 2024 to report that the problem with parking continued. There is no record the landlord responded to these reports until 27 March 2024. This was inappropriate, and in her stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2024, the resident reported the delay responding to her concerns led her to believe her reports were being ignored.
  6. On 27 March 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that following her further reports of problems with parking, it would carry out an inspection. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise it should undertake an inspection in accordance with its procedure. However, the inspection did not take place until 10 April 2024. This was 20 working days after the resident’s report, 15 days in excess of the 5 working day timescale set out in its procedure.
  7. The landlord did not acknowledge its delay responding to the resident and carrying out an inspection, in either its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses, which was inappropriate.
  8. In its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024, the landlord appropriately confirmed an inspection would take place. It said it would send a letter to all residents advising them to avoid parking in ways which obstructed the road or blocked cars in. It also appropriately explained that one of the options available would be for the landlord to introduce parking enforcement and permits for residents living on the street, but all residents in the area would have to agree with this. 
  9. Following its inspection on 10 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2024 with its conclusions about where residents should or should not park. It said it discussed the matter with the resident on the day it inspected. It told her one of the locations which the resident highlighted as causing a problem, was an area the landlord considered acceptable for parking. It found that parking in that area did not block access. It said it would take no further action regarding cars parked in that location. The landlord also confirmed its assessment that parking where the pavement and fence narrowed could block the resident’s access, and agreed residents should not park in that area.
  10. We understand that the resident disagreed with the landlord regarding where residents should or should not be able to park in order to avoid obstructing her access. However, we are not in a position to assess how or where a neighbour’s parking would cause an obstruction to the resident. Instead, our role is to assess whether the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s concerns about parking were reasonable.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to do a site visit, and speak to the resident to show her where it would and would not consider parked vehicles to cause an obstruction.
  12. It was also appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide photographs of vehicles parked in the area which the landlord agreed would cause an obstruction to her garage. It said that after receipt of this evidence, the next step would be levelling out the paving and painting a hatch in that area, to stop other residents parking there. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to suggest. It clearly outlined the evidence it required, and the actions it would take upon receipt of the evidence it requested.
  13. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns following its site visit on 10 April 2024. However, there was a delay in responding to the resident after she raised concerns on 12 March 2024 and 18 March 2024. There was also a delay inspecting as required by the landlord’s procedure for dealing with nuisance vehicles. The landlord did not recognise or apologise for these delays in either the stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses.
  14. Orders are set out below for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident the sum of £50 compensation. This award is in line with our guidance for awards where there was a minor failure in the service the landlord provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to follow this.
  2. Under the Code, landlords are required to:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Respond to the complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord can extend this timeline up to a further 10 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
    3. Acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days.
    4. Provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledgement. The landlord can extend this up to a further 20 working days, providing the resident with a clear explanation for the reasons.
  3. The resident complained on 22 March 2024, which was appropriately acknowledged by the landlord within 5 working days. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 28 March 2024, within the 10 working day deadline.
  4. At stage 2, the landlord responded within the 20 working days, as required by the Code.
  5. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said there had been a delay providing the stage 1 response, which it mistakenly said it had sent on 19 April 2024. It apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £20.
  6. The evidence shows it sent the stage 1 response on 28 March 2024, which was within the 10 working day time limit set out in the Code. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 April 2024, and told her its conclusions following its site inspection on 10 April 2024. This was appropriate communication about the landlord’s response to the parking issue, rather than a delayed stage 1 complaint response.
  7. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders 

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. The apology must be drafted in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. A copy of the apology must be provided to the Ombudsman.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking. Evidence of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman.