Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202322812)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322812

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

3 April 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

This complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for an allocated parking space.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bed flat on the 5th floor of a block of flats. Her tenancy started on 12 February 2020.
The landlord has 125 flats in the building, with 28 parking spaces for use by its residents. There is a high demand for the parking spaces, and the landlord gives priority to blue badge holders. The resident’s property did not come with allocated parking.
The resident made a complaint on 7 November 2022. She said:
1. She had asked the landlord to put her on a waiting list for a parking space in October 2020, and the landlord told her there was no list. She had since learned there was a waiting list.
2. She was unhappy she had not been prioritised for a parking space because of her profession as a driving instructor.
3. She wanted to know why other residents had been offered a space but she had not. She did not feel the landlord had offered newly acquired spaces equally to all residents.
4. She felt she had been misinformed about the parking arrangements when signing the tenancy, and the lack of a parking space was causing her undue stress.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 7 December 2022. It said:
1. The resident’s tenancy agreement specifies that the tenancy did not include parking.
2. It had 28 spaces in the car park, which were allocated to blue badge holders first, and then allocated on a first come first served basis.
3. It made all residents aware at the point of sign up that a parking space was not included with tenancies.
4. It did not advertise any new spaces as it only had 28 spaces for 125 properties.
5. It apologised for giving incorrect information about the waiting list. It said it had now added her to the list, but this did not guarantee a space, and it was very unlikely she would ever get a space.
6. It agreed it would be better if there was a priority basis for spaces, so would carry out a parking review in the new year and let her know the outcome.
The resident was unhappy with the response, so escalated her complaint on 11 January 2023. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. It said:
1. There was no parking space included with the resident’s tenancy, and she was aware of this when signing the tenancy agreement.
2. It had always allocated spaces to blue badge holders as a priority, with a waiting list for others. The list was supposed to be based on tenancy start dates.
3. It had updated the waiting list to account for tenancy start dates. As a result, the resident had moved from 33rd on the list to 12th on the list, with 2 blue badge holders ahead of her.
4. It accepted there was a lack of clarity between housing officers, and poor communication with residents about the waiting list. It said it would write to all residents to inform them of the parking policy.
5. It offered £300 compensation for its failings. This was £100 for delays in the stage 1 response, £100 for delays in the stage 2 response, and £100 for stress regarding the parking. It also paid a £170 parking ticket the resident had received.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us. She said:
1. The landlord was issuing parking spaces to various residents and ignoring her concerns.
2. The landlord had given mixed messages from the start of the tenancy. It said the property comes without parking, but did not say that the estate is a ‘car free zone’. She did not think this would impact her as much as it had because she had a business parking permit. However, the local authority did not renew that permit.
3. She felt she was discriminated against, and that she needs a parking space more than other residents because of her work.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include any allocated parking. As such, she is not entitled to a parking space under the terms of her tenancy. It is for the landlord to decide whether to offer allocated parking spaces to residents outside of its tenancy obligations, and how to allocate them if so.
It is not within our remit to decide how the landlord should allocate any spaces or who it should allocate those spaces to. Our role is to consider whether the landlord has followed its own policies and communicated appropriately with the resident.

Information about a ‘car-free zone’

The landlord’s parking management policy says residents may live in boroughs which have restrictive car-free zones, meaning that there will be no parking available on some developments. The policy says the landlord cannot provide alternative parking in those situations.
The resident said the landlord did not make this clear to her when she signed the tenancy. We cannot comment on what the resident was verbally told during the sign-up process, as there is no documentary evidence of the conversations that took place. However, the landlord’s parking factsheet for the development makes it clear that ‘car-free development’ is the local authority’s term for the area. The landlord does not use the term as it has some parking spaces available.
The landlord is not responsible for advising residents of local authority parking restrictions in the areas around its properties. It would be for residents to research any local authority restrictions when deciding whether or not to accept a property. There is therefore no service failure on the landlord’s part in this regard.

Waiting lists and communication

It is common ground that the landlord gave the resident inconsistent information about whether or not there was a waiting list for parking spaces. It told her in October 2020 that there was no list, and then told her shortly before her complaint in November 2022 that there was a list. It then told her that there was no allocations policy, and that it had allocated spaces on a first come first served basis once all of the blue badge holders had a space.
The landlord has accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s request for a parking space, and its handling of the waiting list. It acknowledged there was a lack of clarity between housing officers as a result of staff changes, and that it provided very little information about parking spaces to residents. It said this led to confusion, as some residents believed there was a waiting list while others were not aware of the list. As the landlord has acknowledged its failings, we have considered whether it has done enough to put things right.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord added her to the waiting list for a parking space. It explained where she was on the list, and appropriately sought to manage her expectations by explaining that this did not guarantee a space.
It would inevitably be frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not add her to the list sooner. However, we have seen no evidence to show the overall outcome would have been different if it had done so, and it is not within our remit to speculate as to how the outcome might have changed in the absence of that evidence.
The evidence available shows the resident was aware when accepting the property that it did not include parking. She only requested a parking space from September 2020 onwards, after the local authority chose not to renew her business permit. There is no evidence to show there were any available spaces for the resident at that time, and the landlord confirmed on 15 April 2021 that all spaces were taken.
During the complaints process, the landlord reviewed the waiting list to prioritise those whose tenancies had started earlier. It was reasonable for the landlord to review the waiting list to ensure everyone on the list had the correct priority. As a result, the resident moved from number 33 to number 12 on the list, with 2 blue badge holders above her. It then told her where she was on the list. The landlord accepted that it should have let her know the outcome of this review sooner. However, there is no evidence that doing so would have changed the overall outcome.
As of 15 August 2024, the resident had yet to reach the top of the waiting list despite the landlord having introduced a new parking allocation policy since the complaint. In the absence of any evidence that she would have been allocated a parking space had the landlord added her to the waiting list at the end of September 2020, any detriment to the resident would be limited to poor communication around the waiting list.
The landlord’s poor communication around the waiting list caused the resident inconvenience, frustration, and the time and trouble to query both landlord’s processes and her position on the list. The landlord has offered £100 compensation for the stress caused, and has also paid a £170 parking ticket the resident received (on a one-off basis). This offer is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which recommends awards of up to £125 for service failures which cause a resident distress and inconvenience. It is also in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but cause no permanent impact.
Overall, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and taken appropriate steps to put things right. This includes adding the resident to the waiting list, reviewing the waiting list to ensure everyone on the list is given the correct priority, telling the resident where she was on the list, introducing an allocation policy, and making an appropriate offer of compensation.
As such, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to resolve the complaint prior to our involvement, and it does not need to do anything else to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Under its policy, it needs to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of an escalation request.
Both of the landlord’s complaint responses were delayed. It took 22 working days to issue a stage 1 response, and 33 working days to issue its stage 2 response. It acknowledged these delays in its stage 2 response, and offered £200 compensation (£100 for each stage).
The level of compensation offered is in line with both its compensation guidance and our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. As such, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling delay, and it does not need to do anything further to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our involvement which satisfactorily resolves:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an allocated parking space.
2. Its handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord pay the compensation offered in its stage 2 response within 4 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on that payment being made.
The landlord should contact us within 4 weeks of the date of this report to let us know its intentions regarding the above recommendation.