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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202311092)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311092

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

13 November 2024


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 reports his allocated parking space was used by an unauthorised vehicle.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder and signed the lease agreement on 29 April 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor in a block. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder of the block.
  2. There is a gated car park for residents at the block. The landlord has confirmed there are no visitor parking spaces. The resident said;
    1. He was allocated a parking space when he signed the lease agreement.
    2. There was no parking management when he moved in. Residents parked where they wanted and another resident had always parked in his allocated space.
    3. Whilst he did not have a vehicle, this meant his family and friends that visited had nowhere to park.
  3. The resident originally contacted the landlord in September 2022 in relation to an unauthorised vehicle using his allocated parking space. He raised a complaint on 19 April 2023 and said he had been unable to use his parking space for the previous 10 months. He said leaseholders were given an allocated parking space, but residents that rented had previously been told they could park anywhere.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023. It said:
    1. It had spoken to a resident believed to be parking in the resident’s space but they said they had their own allocated space and it was not them.
    2. It had consulted with a parking management company who had started to patrol the area from 7 April 2023.
    3. There were no grounds for compensation as the parking bay was not a service included in the resident’s service charge.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint the same day. He said: he had been given inaccurate information about who parked in his space; the parking management company had not resolved the situation as the other resident ignored all fines it issued; there were a limited number of addresses the car could belong to and it still parked in his space.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2023, as follows:
    1. It had tried to establish which neighbour parked in his space but had been unsuccessful. 
    2. There were no other spaces it could allocate.
    3. It had introduced parking control measures.
    4. It would continue to try to establish who parked in the resident’s allocated space. However, there was nothing else it could do.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. Since the resident escalated the complaint to this service, the landlord made some effort to identify the owner of the vehicle. It contacted the DVLA, however searches found the vehicle was not registered to any address at the block. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The parking space is defined in the leasehold agreement as “the car parking space numbered (for the property) or any other parking space the landlord may allocate in writing”. Schedule 3.8. of the agreement says the resident has the exclusive right to park one private motor vehicle on the parking space. Whilst the lease does not clarify which space was his, ‘exclusive right’ to the parking space means the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the parking space. The exception noted in Schedule 4.2. is that the landlord may enter the parking space for the purpose of carrying out its obligations outlined in Clause 5.3. (carry out repairs).
  2. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. The landlord has provided limited evidence to this service. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have systems in place to sufficiently document its actions.
  3. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor and cannot but have hindered cohesive and effective management of the issue. However, it is noted the landlord self assessed against our knowledge and information management in December 2023 following an order on a separate case. In an email to this service on 9 August 2024 the landlord also said the importance of record keeping will be re-trained to all Neighbourhood Coordinators by the end of August 2024, which is a positive step.
  4. The evidence showed the resident reported his allocated parking space being used in September 2022 and January 2023. The lack of records mean it has not been possible to determine what action the landlord took (if any) when the resident raised his initial concerns. However, it introduced a parking management company to patrol the area approximately 7 months after the September 2022 report. Whilst no evidence has been provided to confirm what information was given to residents in relation to this, this was a significant positive step to try to manage the parking at the block.
  5. The resident raised his formal complaint on 19 April 2023 and said which resident he believed was parking in his space. The landlord’s neighbourhood manager acted on the information provided and contacted the other resident. Whilst this was positive, there was also no evidence any further enquiries were made. Given the resident was a leaseholder, and therefore responsible for his own parking space, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage his expectations at this point in relation to what it would do to resolve the situation.
  6. In an internal email dated 5 May 2023 the landlord’s neighbourhood manager said: he “tried to investigate… with no success”; “it could be one of 6 other addresses”; and he was “not sure what else he could do as it would be no good asking random flats not to park there”. Given it was a small number of addresses, it could have been reasonable to write to each address and remind them of their allocated space and parking restrictions. Whilst there was no evidence it did so, the landlord did enquire about whether it could allocate another space to the resident, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. However after the stage 2 response, the neighbourhood manager then appeared to leave the issue to the parking management company to resolve. He said the landlord had done what was required and introduced car parking management and it was “down to [the parking management company] to deal with”. The resident felt frustrated that no action was being taken to deter people from parking in his space.
  8. The landlord would have been aware that parking is an important issue for many residents. It is therefore understandable that the parking situation caused distress to the resident. It was also unfortunate the landlord was unable to allocate an alternative parking space. Regardless of whether he had a vehicle or not, the parking space was his property, and was his to use as confirmed in his lease. Given the limited parking at the block, it would have been advisable for the landlord to make clear the parking situation to residents. It is acknowledged the situation caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. However this was not as significant as it would have been had he needed to park his own vehicle in his parking space.
  9. The landlord introduced a parking management company and acted on information provided by the resident and attempted to find out who parked in his space. Given the circumstances and tenure of the resident, it therefore took reasonable action and the situation is a civil matter between the resident and the other resident. However, the landlord’s lack of communication and failure to manage his expectations were failings. There was also no evidence it continued to find out who parked in the parking space as it said it would in the stage 2 response. There was therefore minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right.
  10. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award compensation for a medium impact event between £20 – £100 where the problem is not resolved within a reasonable timescale. However, it did not consider awarding any compensation to the resident. There was service failure in its handling of the issue and orders are made to put things right. An order has been made the landlord pay £100 in compensation to the resident to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the handling of the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s reports his allocated parking space was used by an unauthorised vehicle.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation. 
    2. Arrange to contact the resident and discuss the options that could help reduce people parking in his space.
    3. Provide an update to this service on whether the importance of record keeping has been re-trained to all neighbour coordinators. If this has not been done already, it should clarify when it intends for this to be completed.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. In the interests of avoiding further complaints regarding parking at the property, the landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to write to residents of the block to clarify who can park where.