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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202222546)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222546

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

9 July 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 response to the resident’s report of an abandoned car parked outside her property.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. On 3 October 2022, the resident reported that a neighbour had parked his car outside her property which she had been told had been declared as Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN) and was untaxed. She said it was an eyesore. On 31 October 2022, the resident called the landlord again for an update as the vehicle remained. On 14 November 2022, the landlord requested further information. The resident provided information on the owner and an image of the vehicle taken from the balcony of her flat, highlighting that the road was a pathway for pedestrians and emergency services. On 17 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour requesting that he remove the car.
  3. On 18 December 2022, the resident complained to the landlord and this Service because the vehicle remained parked outside her property. She said that the vehicle was an eyesore, and it was parked illegally on the landlord’s land without tax, MOT, insurance, and declared as SORN. The vehicle had been there for 6 months and as a resolution to the complaint she wanted it removed immediately.
  4. On 25 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It appreciated the frustration and inconvenience the car continued to cause the resident and confirmed that it was actively managing the issue. It identified that some communications with the resident were delayed and offered £50 compensation for these delays. It identified that it delayed in acknowledging the complaint and offered £30 compensation for this delay.
  5. On 26 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She remained unhappy that the landlord delayed in registering her complaint. She wanted to escalate her complaint because there had been no progress or plan of action outlined to remove the car.
  6. On 2 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation and on 27 March 2023 it provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it was satisfied that it had handled the issue in line with its policy and internal processes. It said that it can take some time to remove SORN vehicles from its property as it needed to confirm the registered owner with DVA, then it would allow a reasonable time for the registered owner to remove the vehicle before proceeding with the next step of working with either the council or police to remove the vehicle.
  7. It had recently provided the vehicle owner with access all day to remove the car, but he had not done so, and as such it would arrange to remove the car. Because of the complaint it would be instructing a parking contractor to monitor the area to ensure cars do not park in that area anymore. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and stage 2.
  8. On the same day, the resident replied to the landlord because she was unhappy with the quality of the stage 2 complaint response. She said it included incorrect information about evidence she provided to the landlord and police, and it did not consider the stress and upset the issue had caused her.
  9. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she was unhappy because the car remained outside her property, and she was unhappy with how the landlord handled her complaint. She further confirmed that the car was removed on 12 April 2023.
  10. On 9 June 2023, after the complaint was duly made with this Service, the landlord reviewed its complaint response and offered a further £50 for time and inconvenience caused by the incorrect information in its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The resident complained to this Service that the abandoned car was on the landlord’s property for 9 months between 5 July 2022 and 12 April 2023. This investigation has only assessed the landlord’s actions since 3 October 2022. This was when the landlord was first aware of the issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an abandoned car parked outside her property.

  1. The landlord’s policy for maintaining and improving neighbourhoods includes a section on parking and vehicles which states that it does not permit any abandoned or untaxed vehicles (including SORN unless in a garage that is paid for) on its land. This is to maximize parking capacity and keep the estate safe.
  2. After the landlord received a report of an abandoned vehicle on 3 October 2022, it created an activity to check the car. When the resident chased an update on 31 October 2022 it contacted its housing management team to investigate. Thereafter, the landlord investigated the issue for the resident. This indicates that there was a delay in investigating the issue initially.
  3. It conducted a reasonable initial investigation by contacting the resident to obtain further information as to where the vehicle was parked to establish ownership. It wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 17 November 2022, reminding them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement not to park any untaxed or unroadworthy vehicle on its land. It said it would begin proceedings to remove the vehicle within 28 days of the letter if the vehicle was not removed or there was no acknowledgement of the letter. This was an appropriate and reasonable action for the landlord to take.
  4. The resident’s neighbour contacted the landlord and accepted that the vehicle was SORN, however, he was not the only tenant that parked his car on that pathway. He felt that if other tenants could park there, he should be allowed to also. He said that other cars were blocking him getting out. On 29 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was investigating her neighbour’s claims that other vehicles parked in the same area and blocked him in. This was a reasonable next step in the landlord’s investigation. 
  5. On 30 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to provide an action plan to remove the car immediately, highlighting that the car had been there for 6 months already. The landlord responded on 2 December 2022, and acknowledged the resident’s frustration. It apologised that the process was taking some time. It explained that to be fair to the resident’s neighbour it had to investigate if it should take action against other cars parked on the walkway and it needed to confirm if the walkway was strictly no parking. It also explained it would need to ensure other cars were removed to give her neighbour a reasonable opportunity to remove the car. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
  6. On 2 December 2022, the resident replied to the landlord saying that even if cars are allowed to park there, her neighbour’s car should be removed as it is SORN. The landlord replied on the 7 December 2022 and said it needed to provide her neighbour with a fair timeframe to either get the vehicle roadworthy or remove it. It again pointed out that his car was blocked in by other cars and it needed to confirm if cars could be parked there. If not, it would need to remove all cars from the area. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. It demonstrated that it was taking action on the issue and sought to manage the resident’s expectations that the car would not be immediately removed. 
  7. Internal email correspondence on 6 January 2023 shows that the housing management team awaited a reply from estate services to establish if cars could park in the area. On 26 January 2023, the landlord wrote to all tenants of the estate to confirm that the area is for emergency vehicles only and allowed 5 days for cars to be removed. After this, it would remove the cars and recharge the owner. On 27 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident’s neighbour and told the neighbour he had 15 days to remove his car. These were appropriate actions for the landlord to take.
  8. On 30 January 2023, the resident’s neighbour called the landlord and advised that due to his personal circumstances, 15 days was not enough time for him to move the car. The landlord agreed to allow the resident’s neighbour until the end of February 2023 to take action to remove the car. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take and demonstrated it was allowing a fair opportunity for the resident’s neighbour to move the car.
  9. On 24 March 2023, the landlord ensured that the resident’s neighbour had access all day to remove the car, but he failed to do so. It confirmed to the resident on 27 March that it would take action to remove the car and it would be instructing a parking contractor to monitor the area to ensure cars do not park in this area. The resident confirmed that the car was subsequently removed on 12 April 2023. These were reasonable measures to put things right for the resident and reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring for the resident in the future.
  10. This Service understands that this was a frustrating situation for the resident. When assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the SORN car this Service also acknowledges that the landlord had a duty to treat the resident’s neighbour fairly and consider how the issue affected the whole estate. Based on the evidence, the landlord adopted a fair approach and ultimately resolved the issue in a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. Furthermore, it put in place measures to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring. 
  11. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress by the landlord with its response to the resident’s reports of an abandoned car parked outside her property. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration offered £50 for a delay in its communication.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code. Its policy also states it accepts complaints across all customer channels.
  2. Its stage 1 complaint response was provided 14 working days beyond its timescales. Its stage 2 complaint response was 22 working days beyond its timescales. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £30 for its delay in acknowledging the complaint at both stages. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
  3. After the resident initially complained on 18 December 2022, internal correspondence shows a lack of ownership the complaints process. On 21 December 2022, an internal email states “Hi mate, trying to avoid going down the formal complaint route, please discuss with … if you feel that’s how it needs to go”. This was inappropriate. The resident was clear that she was making a complaint and the landlord’s failure to register a complaint was inappropriate.
  4. On 23 December 2022, the landlord provided an update on the substantive issues that the resident complained about. However, the resident replied on the same date and confirmed she wished to raise a formal complaint. The landlord emailed the resident to a link to raise a complaint. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have registered the complaint instead of the requesting the resident to complain through a specific channel.   
  5. On 5 January 2023, the complaints team emailed housing management to say the resident would make a complaint if the issue was not resolved. Housing management replied on 6 January 2023 to confirm the resident wants a formal complaint. The resident chased a complaint response on 11 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response the resident acknowledged this failure and offered £30 for its delay in acknowledging the complaint.
  6. The Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain through its complaint’s procedure. The evidence demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge the complaint and the landlord put unreasonable barriers to the resident registering a complaint initially. This was inappropriate and caused delay for the resident.
  7. After the resident escalated the complaint on 26 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 March 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord was attempting to resolve the substantive issue before providing its stage 2 complaint response. It is not realistic for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. At stage 2, the landlord should put right the issues identified up until that point and commit to resolving the outstanding issues within a reasonable timescale and set out clearly to the resident how it plans to do so. 
  8. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response, stating that it had reminded its customer facing teams of its complaints process “highlighting in particular that complaints investigations run in parallel to existing action we may be taking rather than instead of it.” This was appropriate and demonstrates learning.
  9. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident brought her complaint to this Service and made an improved offer. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider.
  10. This Service does however consider the landlord’s revised offer to be reasonable. It considered the initial service failure, the detriment to the resident, and the complaint handling. This Service orders the landlord to re-instate its offer of £80 to the resident.
  11. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the evidence shows a reluctance to acknowledge the complaint in the first instance, a reluctance to escalate the complaint, and it placed a barrier to the resident by requesting that she made a complaint through a different channel. These failures were not specifically addressed in its stage 2 complaint response.   
  12. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
  13. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
  14. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an abandoned car parked outside her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1. If it has not already done so, it is ordered for the landlord to pay the compensation of £80 offered to the resident in respect of its complaint handling failures, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord provide complaint handling training to the complaint handling personnel involved in this complaint, with particular focus on identifying, registering, and escalating complaints, so that residents have access to the complaints process.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay £50 it offered to the resident for the frustration caused by its communication failings. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.