London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202318342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318342

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 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:
   1. The removal of the resident’s vehicle.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy started in June 2019.

Summary of events 

3. The resident parked his vehicle in the communal carpark of his property. In correspondence with the landlord, he believed that as it was private landlord he was allowed to keep his vehicle parked in the carpark. Also, he had added a notice to the vehicle to say it was working. On 17 April 2023 the landlord removed the resident’s vehicle as it stated it was in a dangerous condition.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 April 2023 that his vehicle was removed without his consent. He said his vehicle was not causing an obstruction or an inconvenience to anyone. Also, he was not allowed sufficient time to recover his vehicle from storage. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023. In its response the landlord confirmed it spoke with the resident and issued a letter on 14 April 2023. The letter said it would remove his vehicle if he did not remove the bricks from under the vehicle. The landlord explained that the vehicle being on bricks was causing a danger to other residents. The landlord also issued a tort notice which is a legal document which can be served by the landlord prior to removing an item e.g. vehicle. The tort notice stated that his vehicle was to be removed on 17 April 2023 if his tyres were not inflated and bricks removed. It confirmed that the vehicle was removed on 17 April 2023 and placed in storage for 28 days if the resident wished to collect it. The landlord did not find any failings regarding its actions.
5. The resident requested that the landlord progress the complaint to stage 2 on 21 July 2023. He said his vehicle was removed without his consent or prior notification. The resident explained that his vehicle was in perfect working order and was not causing an obstruction or inconvenience to others.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023. It said it found his vehicle to be on bricks and with a statutory off road notification (SORN) on 14 April 2023. Therefore, it followed correct process in issuing a tort notice and as the vehicle remained a health and safety risk it removed the vehicle on 17 April 2023. It reiterated that the resident had 28 days to collect his vehicle, but it had agreed to provide a further 14 days as a goodwill gesture.
7. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident is wanting his vehicle returned and to receive compensation.

Assessment and findings

 Scope of investigation

8. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he remains unhappy that the landlord did not refund a parking charge issued by the local authority. Also, the landlord has not provided him with a parking permit so he has been receiving fines from the DVLA for having his current vehicle on public land when it is not taxed. These matters did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Before this Service can consider a complaint, the resident must have completed the landlord’s complaint process. As such the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the complaint matters raised in the resident’s complaint in 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s vehicle

9. The tenancy agreement states residents are not to park any motor vehicle anywhere in the property, building, or estate other than where it is road worthy, taxed, and insured and provided it is parked in a shared carpark. Additionally, lawful occupiers and visitors shall carry out repairs or servicing of any vehicles in the property, building and/or estate without first gaining consent from the landlord.
10. The landlord’s abandoned and nuisance vehicle policy states that any dangerous vehicles will be dealt with immediately. In cases where the landlords perceive a vehicle to be a nuisance it will:
    1. take a picture of the vehicle and log it on its system.
    2. Check whether the vehicle is taxed and has a valid ministry of transport test certificate (MOT). It will then check with the police to find the registered keeper if the vehicle owner is unknown.
    3. Issue a letter to the owner of the vehicle.
    4. Inspect the vehicle 14 days later. If the vehicle has been removed no further action taken.
    5. Send a tort notice to the registered keeper and attach notice to vehicle.
    6. Inspect the vehicle 14 days later, if it has not been removed arranged for an online valuation of the vehicle.
    7. If the vehicle had a SORN for at least 2 years arrange for the vehicle to be scrapped, if not arrange for the vehicle to be stored.
    8. Inspect the vehicle 14 days later.
11. The landlord’s parking allocation and abandoned and nuisance vehicle procedure states it will issue a confirmation of removal letter when a vehicle is removed. This confirms that in compliance with the Tort (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, if a resident fails to collect their vehicle within 28 days the landlord will authorise the contractor to sell or destroy the vehicle.
12. The resident said his vehicle had 2 flat tyres, so he used bricks to stop it rolling. He explained that he had advised the landlord of this and had put a notice in the car to say it was working, had a statutory off road notification, and was on private land. As such, the resident stated that the landlord did not give him a reasonable amount of time to deal with the issues with his car.
13. In this case, the landlord removed the resident’s vehicle on 17 April 2023, and it was placed in storage. The records show that the landlord spoke to the resident and gave him a letter on 14 April 2023. The landlord added a tort notice to the car and provided a copy to the resident. The letter stated that his vehicle was deemed as dangerous as it was being held up by bricks. Therefore, it was to be removed on 17 April 2023. It explained that if the resident removed the bricks and the vehicle was freestanding then it would not be recovered by the landlord. However, the landlord clarified that as the resident’s vehicle did not have tax or an MOT even if the vehicle was freestanding, it would still be classified as a nuisance under its nuisance vehicle procedure.
14. This was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement as the tenancy agreement is clear that vehicles should be taxed and have an MOT. The landlord’s investigations found that the resident’s vehicle had neither an MOT nor road tax, it was appropriate for the landlord to take action. This was in line with its abandoned and nuisance vehicle policy to remove a car in a short period of time if it was found to be a danger. With this in mind, there was no failings on the landlord’s behalf regarding its removal of the resident’s vehicle. The landlord also appropriately advised the resident that his vehicle has to be collected within 28 days and provided the details of the storage company. It also agreed to provide a further additional 14 days on top of the stipulated 28 days for the resident to collect his vehicle. This was a customer focused approach.
15. It was a failing that the landlord did not issue the resident a confirmation of removal letter once it had removed his vehicle. The confirmation of removal letter explains that vehicles are kept in storage for 28 days and if not collected a vehicle could be sold or destroyed. Whilst this Service has seen evidence that the landlord did stipulate the same during a call with the resident on 26 April 2023 it would have been best practice for it to issue a formal letter in line with its parking allocation and abandoned and nuisance vehicle procedure.
16. However, as the resident was provided with the details of the storage company and how to collect his vehicle in a relatively short period of time there was no maladministration in the landlord’s actions. Despite this, the landlord should ensure that it follows its process in sending confirmation of removal letters in future.

The associated complaint

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
18. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, its investigation should focus on issues raised in a resident’s complaint.
19. The landlord’s state 2 complaint response dated 15 August 2023 incorrectly stated that the resident recently had damp in his property. This did not form part of the complaint and was not something the resident had mentioned. In correspondence with this Service the landlord apologised for this and explained this was in fact from a different complaint.
20. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states its investigations should only focus on the issues raised in the complaint. Whilst the landlord has apologised in correspondence with the Ombudsman, it has not provided any evidence of an apology to the resident. This was not customer focused or in line with its complaint policy to apology for any failings identified. However, the Ombudsman has not found that this caused any detriment to the resident. As such, this Service has found no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s vehicle.
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

22. The landlord is ordered to apologise for the incorrect information included in its stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
23. The landlord should contact the resident regarding his present concerns regarding including obtaining a parking permit.