Places for People Group Limited (202217040)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217040

Places for People Group Limited

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about parking bays on his street.
2. The resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bed, mid-terrace house. The resident has a shared ownership lease agreement with the landlord.
The resident’s home is in one of 2 small rows of mews houses sitting opposite one another, served by a road running through the middle. A number of parking bays are situated off this road in front of the mews houses, separated by alternating trees/ amenity space. The resident’s street sits within a wider estate, some of which is also managed by the landlord.
The use of the parking bays on the resident’s street and in the immediate area has been the subject of multiple prior complaints to the local authority from local residents since at least the 1990s. A proposed parking control scheme in the late 1990s was not implemented due to what the landlord described a ‘poor (local) response’. The resident raised parking concerns in 2002.
In 2004 the local authority implemented a controlled parking zone in the surrounding estate. The parking bays on the resident’s street were excluded as outside of local authority ownership and marked ‘private’. The local authority advised it understood the landlord was due to allocate spaces. The landlord introduced temporary parking controls on the street in response to concerns expressed by residents about an increased use of the bays. It allocated permits to residents of the street, non-specific to a particular bay.
The landlord consulted the street residents in 2005 at the end of the temporary controls. It proposed continuation of the scheme by paid for permits. Concerns were raised about the detail of its proposals. The landlord advised that the majority were against the plan and ended its controls. It offered to re-examine the issue if parking became an issue again.
During the course of the consultation, the landlord issued a letter to the resident dated 23 March 2005 that it said was to provide clarification of the local parking situation. It said that:
1. The parking bays on the street were owned by the landlord. The resident had no exclusive/ specific rights from the lease to park in the street bays.
2. The imposition of parking controls on its private land was at its discretion.
In March 2012, the resident reported to the landlord concerns about use of the street bays by non-street residents and an altercation with a non-resident person using the bay outside his home. The landlord said it was unable to mark the bays private as the road was owned by the local authority . It promised steps to explore the establishment of parking control.
On 21 July 2020 the resident requested the reduction of a field maple tree behind his home blocking sunlight due to overgrowth. The landlord advised that this tree was not scheduled for pruning, having not been identified in its prior annual tree survey. It assured the resident by email of 13 October 2020 that it was ‘identified as one that would need reducing asap’.
In August 2020 the resident requested the landlord to confirm parking rights for the street bays. He raised nuisance associated with their use by non-street residents and lack of parking control. The landlord replied in September 2020 and advised it was parking for estate residents, not restricted to individual streets. The resident gave his understanding that the street bays were ‘a special case’, referring to the 2005 consultation and extracts from local authority l correspondence. By email of 10 September 2020 the landlord replied, ‘I agree that it does appear that the parking on [the resident’s mews] is for the residents of those properties only’ and offered to write to residents of the adjoining street to advise against use of the street bays. The resident replied seeking parking control measures. There was no record of a reply.

Scope of investigation

Under the rules of the (then) Scheme, this Service may not investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of a landlord within a reasonable period, usually considered as within 6 months of the matter(s) occurring. The landlord logged a formal complaint by the resident in October 2022. However, it is noted that correspondence relevant to his complaint and containing expressions of dissatisfaction were raised to the landlord in September 2022. Therefore this service has focused its investigation of the landlord’s handling from the resident’s contact with the landlord in March 2022.
Background correspondence and documentation dating back to 1997 were supplied to this Service during the course of this investigation. However, no complaint was reasonably expressed to the landlord until 2022. This Service has considered matters pre-March 2022 as important background only where directly relevant to the landlord’s handling of matters from 2022 onwards.

Summary of events

On 16 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, forwarding the 2020 email chain about the overgrown tree. He asked whether it would be pruned that year. The landlord acknowledged his email on 18 March 2022 and said his request had been forwarded.
On 12 May 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a reply to his previous email. He updated there had been further growth and the tree was almost covering his entire outside space. He chased a response on 10 June 2022.
On 25 June 2022 the resident submitted a report to the landlord of an altercation with a non-street resident using the parking bay outside his home. He raised that the landlord had not responded to his last email in 2012 about parking concerns or implemented controls leading to local issues. He requested that the landlord enforce parking restrictions.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report and sought further details about the altercation to consider involvement of its tenancy enforcement service. It advised having passed on the parking issue for response by its local service.
The resident chased a response to his tree request by email of 5 July 2022. He alerted the landlord to the tree becoming entangled with his tv aerial and concern for damage to his property. Following receipt of an out of office message, the resident directed his email to another member of the landlord’s staff. It advised having passed on his request.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had asked the local estate’s residents’ association to provide a view about parking enforcement. The resident replied, raising concern that the association may not represent his particular position and their input risked a new position inconsistent with its prior treatment or residents’ right. The resident also flagged that he was awaiting a response about the overgrown tree.
The landlord’s tree management survey was conducted on 29 July 2022. The field maple tree raised by the resident was identified as needing pruning.
On 5 September 2022 the resident sent an email to the landlord raising its lack of response. He repeated this concern by further email of 22 September 2022 in which he listed his prior efforts at contact and said the matters brought to its attention were unresolved.
The landlord replied on 22 September 2022. It:
1. Apologised to the resident for not responding appropriately to his contact.
2. Said it had the result of its tree survey; some trees would be pruned where found to be close to buildings. It promised to update the resident once arrangements were made.
3. Advised having ‘mentioned’ his concerns about parking to the residents association. The landlord explained the association would need to agree any ‘fundamental change’ to parking arrangements.
4. Asked if the resident had details of the association and advised of an upcoming meeting.
The resident replied to the landlord on 26 September 2022. He asked if the field maple tree would be included in its tree pruning works. The resident expressed concern about the input of the estate-wide residents association to influence the management of parking bays on his street. He raised concern about any reduction of his parking rights.
The resident chased response to his email on 18 October 2022. He also submitted a complaint to the landlord about its:
1. Management of parking on the street. The resident said it had failed to enforce restrictions leading to nuisance.
2. Reliance on consultation with the estate-wide residents’ association over parking at the exclusion of the resident’s concerned.
3. (Lack of) specific response to his concerns about the field maple tree.
4. Communication and handling of the issues he reported. He expressed disappointment that he received no responses and issues were unresolved.
5. Failure to log his concerns as a complaint.
On 18 October 2022 the landlord returned to the resident and apologised for a delayed response. It said that the lease only allowed for parking of a vehicle in ‘the parking area’. It explained that its parking policy was influenced by the estate’s residents’ association so it could consider what was fair for all residents in view of a general shortage of parking. It said ‘no major change’ was being proposed by the association. It noted the resident’s concerns about the association’s engagement with all residents. The landlord promised to return to the resident later that week about the tree.
The resident replied the same date. He advised the landlord of his understanding that it operated a particular policy in respect of the bays on his street and referred to the prior consultation. He raised concern over the fairness of the landlord’s decision making. The landlord returned to the resident and apologised for its lack of awareness of any prior agreement. It advised it would uphold any formal policy.
On 24 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and highlighted that he was awaiting an update about the overgrown tree.
On 2 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord raising concern that he had received no acknowledgement of his complaint or any response. He advised referring to this Service.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and apologised it had not logged his complaint in line with its policy. It advised his complaint would be responded to by 17 November 2022. It promised to update him if it needed more time.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It accepted its response to his concerns had been ‘poor’ and apologised. It explained about staff shortages. It offered compensation of £50.
2. It had no planned changes to the parking arrangements on his street.
3. It wanted the resident to advise it of the ‘best place’ for it to erect parking signage and it would make arrangements for signs to be made and put up.
4. The trees nearest to his home at the front and rear would be trimmed.
On 29 November 2022 the resident responded to the landlord. He detailed suggestions for the location of the offered signage and a further measure of marking the street parking bays ‘private’. He asked for specific confirmation that the field maple tree was included in the pruning works and of the arrangements.
On 7 January 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord seeking its response to the resident in line with its complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged an escalation of the resident’s complaint on 9 January 2023. It gave details of the complaint handler and advised its response was due by 27 January 2023.
A call was made by the landlord to the resident on 20 January 2023. The landlord retained no note of this conversation.
On 2 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord for an update, noting the due date for its final response had passed. The landlord replied to advise its deadline was that date. This correspondence referred to a call that date of which there is no separate record.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. It acknowledged failing to reply to his email in November 2022, provide sufficient details about the tree or resolve his raised issues to date. It acknowledged its communication had not been to expected standards. It accepted not keeping to the response date provided.
2. It confirmed its tree survey findings and works due specific to the overgrown tree. It promised to install the signs ‘as requested’ and confirm details for this and the tree pruning on or by 10 February 2023.
3. The landlord offered an apology for its failings. It offered additional compensation of £50 to account for its failure to reply or action matters since November 2022.
4. The final response handler would ‘work together’ with the resident to arrange and complete its outstanding actions.
5. It would add the identified failings to ‘lessons learned’ and feedback internally to take corrective and improvement actions. It said it had a new case management system it hoped would support improvements.

Post-complaint

On 8 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for not replying to his November email. It attached its tree survey and said it was awaiting the local authority’s consent for works. It updated that it was consulting more widely on the provision of parking control signs. The resident responded the same date. He expressed ongoing disappointment that the issues had no fixed timescales for resolution. He raised concern that the landlord’s update suggested a rowing back on promises made by its complaint response.
The landlord returned to the resident on 9 February 2023. It confirmed the tree would be completed 28 February 2023 and provided details of the granted local authority permission. The overgrown tree was trimmed on 28 February 2023.
On 6 March 2023 the resident expressed to the landlord his ongoing disappointment at the landlord’s communication and adherence to its promise to erect parking control signs. The landlord replied 3 days later with an apology and a promise to ‘sort out’ the signage.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord updated the resident that it had completed ‘the consultation that was necessary’ and was arranging parking signage.
The landlord sent a letter dated 17 March 2023 to the resident as an update to its complaint response. It offered an apology for a lack of clear communication in response to parking signage. It acknowledged a failure to provide sufficient details about the consultation and inadequate cross over between the complaint handler and service handling its actions. It offered a further £50 compensation. It updated the resident that the signage was on order and it was awaiting a date for installation, of which it would update the resident on or by 29 March 2023. The resident received the letter 24 March 2023.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord informed the resident it was awaiting an installation date and would advise further on or by 6 April 2023. On 6 April 2023 it updated the resident it aimed to install signage by 30 April 2023 and would update him by 14 April 2023. On 13 April 2023 the landlord told the resident installation was delayed and it would update once a date was confirmed.
On 2 May 2023 the resident chased an update from the landlord. It replied to him the next day advising it was still awaiting a date, provided explanation for its delay and apologised.
On 19 May 2023 the landlord confirmed signage would be erected the following week and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve.
The landlord erected signage in the immediate area on 23 May 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord the same day raising concern about the content and location of the signs. He expressed fear the signs could exacerbate rather than resolve the issues he had raised. His concerns included that the landlord had erected no sign to cover the space outside his home.
On 10 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord seeking a response.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord replied to the resident and apologised for its delayed contact. It provided an explanation for the signage erected that it considered it sufficient to deter unauthorised parking. The resident replied, stating the signage was not erected in line with his request and did not cover outside his home. The resident chased the landlord for a reply on 15 September 2023. The resident advised this Service he has received no reply.
The local authority has subsequently introduced a controlled parking zone covering the resident’s street. This does not cover the street parking bays.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair;
2. put things right;
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The land subject of the resident’s lease does not include the parking bay outside their home or any other bay on the street. There are no explicit rights to park in a particular area. The lease provides for the landlord to maintain the parking area and the amenity land as part of its estate services. The resident is prohibited from cutting back the trees.
The landlord’s estate management policy states the following:
1. It will take action to rectify any issues identified on its estates within a ‘timely fashion’.
2. Parking arrangements will be managed at a local level taking account the particularities of the scheme and area. Residents could not be guaranteed a parking space.
3. It would maintain landscaped areas to agreed standards, maintained by regular inspections.
The landlord’s complaints policy detailed a 2 stage complaint process:
1. At stage 1, the landlord would acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide its formal response in 10 working days.
2. At stage 2, it would acknowledge in 3 working days and issue response in 20 working days.
The policy defined a complaint in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction’ about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, our staff, or those acting on our behalf..’ It committed to using the insight and learning it gained from complaints to establish service improvements.
The Code as then in force set out the following expectations of the landlord:
1. Regular updating to the resident during the course of investigation, even if there was no new substantive information to provide.
2. That its complaint investigation be conducted in an impartial manner and the complaint handler have an open mind and take measures to address any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
3. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
The landlord had a compensation policy and calculation guidance for its staff to assess appropriate redress where it had failed to put something right. Examples it gave of appropriate circumstances to consider compensation included its unreasonable delay to resolving a query/issue and the customer was not kept informed and where the overall customer experience fell short of expected standards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking bays on his street

The resident had no right arising from his lease to park in the bay outside his home or on one the bays on his particular street. The street parking bays were owned by the landlord who had discretion to manage these as it saw fit in line with its proper administration and management of the estate. It was under obligation to maintain the parking bays. They were clearly intended for use by residents of the estate, considering their maintenance was paid for by an estate service charge.
The resident expressed concerns in order to clarify the landlord’s position regarding parking on his street. The landlord had previously implemented controls restricting parking on the street to those residents of the street only. It had consulted with those living on the street to determine its management of the bays. While it had communicated the legal position for parking rights in 2005, in 2020 it acknowledged a wider position to the resident. Its email of 10 September 2020 stated the bays were for use of residents of the street only.
The resident made reference in his representations to the landlord of his street’s ‘special case’ and ‘rights’. The landlord failed to directly address this matter in its responses and outline with sufficient clarity the relevant parking rights. There is no evidence that the landlord had reasonable regard to its previous advice when formulating responses. Although the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was clear that the resident had no entitlement to a specific bay, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the street. The landlord could reasonably have gone further to set out the position of street residents and address the confusion apparent from its own records and evident in the resident’s contact. It missed an opportunity to provide clarity and to directly respond to his concerns.
The records considered show that the landlord’s previous actions on parking controls in the street were subject to consultation with residents of the street. In response to the resident’s concerns of June 2022, the landlord sought views from the estate-wide residents’ association. It later advised that any key changes to parking would require their agreement. This reflected a departure from the way in which it previously took account of the views of those living on the street. The residents’ association reflected interests and views across the whole estate and not only those of the residents on the street concerned.
The reason for the landlord consulting outside of the street is not apparent from the records. Such a departure is not necessary unreasonable; considerable time had passed since its prior consultation and local developments eg controlled parking zone, may reasonably have changed the landlord’s priorities or resident engagement strategy. The parking bays were not legally restricted to those on street. It is reasonable that the landlord sought to engage with a local body if representative of residents’ views.
However, the landlord’s responses to the resident failed to recognise that for him, its approach was a departure and one that seemingly gave less weight to his view as a street resident. It failed to recognise that its prior actions created a reasonable expectation it would act similarly and provide an explanation for its updated position. It failed to reasonably reflect this in its contact with the resident, causing a lack of clarity from inconsistency and unnecessary distress.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide reasonable transparency or details as to the matters explored as part of the resident engagement process. This compounded the impression provided to the resident that his views were not being given sufficient weight or consideration.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking concerns across the period under review was subject to failings of reasonable communications:
1. It repeatedly failed to respond to contact from the resident, including for periods of some months, and to communicate a position.
2. It did not show sufficient regard to the resident’s voice, impacting its ability to demonstrate empathy towards the importance of the issue to him.
3. It failed to provide responses with reasonable level of detail or explanation until its final response, leading to the resident to have further reasonable concerns and questions.
Its handling of the parking concerns displayed inconsistencies and mixed messages leading to confusion, unnecessary disappointment and causing the resident to incur time and trouble to seek clarity. While the landlord advised in its earlier handling that the resident association had to agree any changes, its complaint resolution offered for the resident to decide on placement of parking signage. This was a very open-handed offer that could reasonably lead to wider unfairness. It is not surprising to this Service that the landlord later noted the need for wider considerations outside of the resident’s views. However, the landlord gave this promise to the resident and then departed from the expectation and assurance it had created. It failed to adequately address this to him or provide redress for the additional detriment it caused. While it had made such an offer in an effort to put matters right, it was unable to realistically fulfil its promise and this exacerbated the detriment caused.
The overall management of the parking concerns displayed little evidence of a coherent and consistent local policy/ plan concerning parking on the street and the estate. This is of concern in view of the landlord’s evident awareness of repeat and historical local issues. The landlord’s response was largely reactive, delayed and failed to display a reasonable approach to adopting local arrangements as intended by its estate management policy.
This Service has considered the landlord’s acknowledgement of failings and apologies for what it appropriately described as poor communication. However, the impact of its apologies was significantly lessened by the continuation of a pattern of failings. The detriment to the resident was further exacerbated by the repeat disappointment caused. The landlord’s response and offered financial redress also failed to reflect the level of failings identified above or the detriment caused by failure to deliver its promises. It is of concern to this Service that the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the remedial actions taken appears outstanding.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of parking bays on his street.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree

At the point of his request in March 2022, the resident had been awaiting news since October 2020 when informed the tree had been identified for pruning ‘asap’. The resident was entirely dependent on the landlord’s action considering the restriction in his lease. In any event, it was legally required to maintain the amenity land as paid for by an estate charge.
The landlord’s response failed to model its estate management policy commitment to rectify identified issues within a timely manner. The landlord had previously identified the tree for pruning, however it was only in response to its tree survey 4 months after the resident’s chaser that it logged the need for works. It seemingly failed to have appropriate regard to, and accordingly action, its previous promise flagged by the resident in March 2022.
It is reasonable that the landlord would complete greenery maintenance alongside other identified works; it would be uneconomical for the landlord to attend solely for one tree. However, there would or should reasonably have been an opportunity for action before the end of February 2023. The landlord’s teams would reasonably be completing maintenance activities with some form of regularity. There is no reasonable explanation apparent from the landlord’s records for the 11 months it took after the resident’s chaser to complete works it had promised ‘asap’ 2 years earlier. Its delay was unreasonable and out of line with its policy commitment.
The landlord’s communication with the resident in response to his request was subject to a series of failings:
1. It repeatedly failed to respond to his contact.
2. It failed to update him of developments relevant to his request. Despite his repeat chasers over 4 months, it failed to let him know it had surveyed the tree in July 2022. It only updated the resident after his further chaser 2 months later.
3. It provided unclear and vague information that failed to reasonably address the resident’s request about a particular tree. While the landlord had access to information confirming its findings about the field maple tree, it provided generic information. It suggested the tree was awaiting local authority permission when it was already in receipt of the relevant grant.
Its communication failings lead to the resident being put to time and trouble chasing responses and seeking clarification. The landlord failed to show it was listening to the resident on an issue impacting the enjoyment of his home and causing him concern.
Following its final response to the complaint the landlord completed the works within a reasonable timescale. This Service notes that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its communication failings on multiple occasions. However, following its apologies it repeated the same failings, casing the resident further detriment. This impacted the ability of the landlord’s apologies to put matters right.
The total compensation offered by the landlord failed to reflect its unreasonable delay of 11 months and the impact to the resident from communication failings that were significant in their repetition. The financial redress was not proportionate to the accumulation of failings specific to the tree request and did not reflect appropriately the detriment it had caused.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about tree maintenance. It is ordered to pay compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

While the landlord processed the resident’s concerns as a complaint in response to his contact of 18 October 2022, it failed to apply its definition of a complaint to his earlier communication in line with its policy or the Code. The resident’s contact across September 2022 raised the landlord’s lack of response, listed failed efforts at contact and concern that matters were unresolved. These were clear expressions of dissatisfaction that should reasonably have been treated as complaints. While the landlord’s complaint response identified communication failings, it failed to acknowledge this specific departure from its policy and procedure.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation did not display a reasonable level of independence and impartiality as expected by the Code. Its review of its earlier handling was investigated by the same staff member with whom the resident had been previously corresponding. This particular staff member’s failure to respond to the resident formed part of his complaint. In those circumstances, there were reasonable risks of the assigned complaint handler being unable to adopt the open mind expected by the Code. Although this Service noted the landlord’s willingness to self-reflect and apologise in the stage 1 response, assignment of investigation to a staff member whose contact was subject of the complaint reasonably put at risk the fairness of its complaint handling and gives at least a perception of bias.
The Code required that any remedy proposed as resolution to a complaint be followed through to completion. The landlord however repeatedly failed to display a proactive approach to this expected follow through at every stage of its complaint handling. Although its final response suggested ownership for compliance would remain with the complaint handler, communications faded away and delay crept in. This added to the detriment caused to the resident whose principal complaint was of poor communication. The repetition of the landlord’s failure to ensure timely remedial action and in the cross-over of communications with local services gives rise to concern that the landlord was not appropriately taking ownership to track and monitor remedial compliance. Further, the landlord’s repeat communications failings did not demonstrate implementation of the learning identified by its early complaint response.
The landlord failed to keep reasonable records of key contact it held with the resident during the course of is stage 2 complaint investigation. It held 2 calls with the resident; 20 January and 2 February 2023. Neither call was noted.
This Service has considered that the landlord acknowledged complaint handling failings relating to its engagement with the resident and delay to response. It apologised and offered compensation. However, it did not identify and address the other failings noted above nor the detriment caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking bays on his street.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about his entitlement to use the street parking bays. It did not directly address his understanding and clarify the respective rights and its local position. It did not show a proactive and consistent approach to local parking arrangements. Its responses to the resident failed to acknowledge the relevant background to its handling and reasonably manage the expectations it had created. The information it provided in its earlier handling was not reasonably transparent and its communication subject to a series of failings.
The landlord’s failed to model its estate management policy commitment to respond to the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree within a timely manner. The resident was subjected to unreasonable delay and a series of related communication failings.
The landlord failed to apply its definition of a complaint to the resident’s earlier communication in line with its policy or the Code. Its stage 1 investigation did not adhere to the level of impartiality required by the Code and fair process. The landlord’s remedial actions were delayed and subject to minimal engagement with the resident. It failed to display effective implementation of the learning it advised having identified to prevent further detriment to the resident. While the landlord apologised and offered compensation for delay to remedial action and communications, it did not address the full extent of its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.

In order to demonstrate compliance with the order in this case the apology should comply with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance and must:

Be personal and specific to the resident and case.
Express empathy.
Acknowledge the failures in the case and the impact on the resident.
Take responsibility for the failings identified and express sincere regret.

Pay the resident £250 compensation. It is comprised of:
1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking bays on his street.
2. £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown tree.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience arising from its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

Pay the sum of £150 previously offered in its correspondence of 17 March 2023 unless this has already been paid to the resident.
Contact the resident to explore his concerns about parking signage expressed during the course of the complaint remedial actions and within 2 weeks of that contact confirm its response to his concerns in writing.
Offer to arrange a meeting between the resident and a manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation with the aim of rebuilding the relationship of trust.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case to determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence of the failings identified. The review should include but not be limited to an assessment of:
1. Its policy and procedures for making decisions about the local parking arrangements for the street.
2. How it ensures the impartiality and independence of its complaint investigations on assignment of its complaint handler.
3. Its procedures for ensuring the tracking of remedial actions to completion and interim engagement with the complainant/s.
4. How it ensures the effective implementation of lessons learned.

The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.