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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202316630)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316630

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

28 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a dedicated car parking space.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and the rent includes a service charge for maintaining a car park and road. The resident’s GP told the landlord she had been diagnosed with sickle cell disease, gallbladder disease, acute pancreatitis and avascular bone necrosis.
  2. The resident’s property fronts onto a main road. There is a communal car park at the rear of the resident’s property on a neighbouring street which is owned by the landlord. At an unknown date prior to May 2022, the resident received a car parking penalty.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 24 May 2022 and said the landlord had failed to take account of her disabilities and she had been subject to discrimination. She said she needed a car parking space and was frequently unable to park her car as other residents parked where they wanted to. She noted that she had previously asked the landlord to mark out an additional disabled parking bay. She also said the landlord failed to return her telephone call on 19 May 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 June 2022 and said:
    1. The resident’s tenancy agreement did not entitle her to a designated parking space.
    2. The car park was designated for residents who lived on the neighbouring road and that whilst it did not want to deny her access to parking, priority would be given to those residents. Any unallocated parking bays would be offered to residents who lived on the resident’s road, subject to need.
    3. It was happy to review its position if the resident had documentation confirming she had previously been given permission to park in the car park.
    4. It would arrange for all the disabled bays to be marked out and instruct its parking enforcement contractor to issue parking permits to blue badge holders.
    5. It had sent a letter to a neighbouring landlord in support of her application to use one of its disabled parking spaces.
    6. It was sorry for not returning the resident’s telephone call on 29 May 2022.
    7. It offered the resident £60 compensation. This was made up of £25 for the failure to return her telephone call, £25 for the delays and £10 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  5. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 September 2022. She said she had lived on the estate for over 20 years and was entitled to a car parking space. The resident also queried why she had been issued with a car parking permit by the landlord if she was not entitled to use the car park. She said the landlord would need to move her to accommodate her needs if she could not park her car near her home.
  6. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2022 and said:
    1. It could find no record of the resident being given permission to park in the car park and could not agree for her to do so.
    2. The resident should provide a copy of her tenancy agreement if she believed she was entitled to park in the car park.
    3. The resident should make contact if she required assistance with regards to her housing situation.
  7. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 December 2022 and said:
    1. The resident paid a service charge for the upkeep and cleaning of the car park.
    2. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint but needed to carry out further investigations regarding her entitlement to park.
    3. It had developed an action plan which included meeting residents on both roads. It would conclude its investigations by early February 2023 and share its findings with all of the residents.

Post complaint events.

  1. The landlord held meetings with residents from both streets in February 2023. Parking controls were introduced on 11 April 2023.
  2. The landlord wrote to all of the residents in June 2023 and confirmed:
    1. Residents who had a driveway would be given 1 parking permit. They were not allowed to park in the car park or on the adjacent road.
    2. Residents who did not have a driveway would be issued with 1 parking permit and could park in the parking bays that were due to be marked out.
    3. The parking bays would not be allocated and would be available on a first-come, first-served basis.
    4. Qualifying residents would be issued with a carer’s permit.
    5. Residents living on the resident’s road should only park their car in the car park.
    6. It would explore opportunities to create more on road parking in consultation with the local authority.
  3. The landlord created disabled parking bays on a neighbouring road in July 2023.
  4. The resident told this Service on 24 September 2024 that she had been subject to disability discrimination. She noted the landlord told her that she could not park in the car park, despite having done so for 20 years. She also said the landlord should provide a numbered, disabled parking bay at the side of her flat.
  5. The landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation on 30 September 2024 in recognition of the failure to acknowledge her complaint in October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a dedicated parking space.

  1. The tenancy agreement does not include provision for an allocated parking space for the resident. However, a service charge is applied to her rent account for the maintenance and cleaning of the car park and service road.
  2. The landlord’s estate management policy says residents are required to have a valid parking permit if they want to park their vehicle on the landlord’s car park. It also says a car parking permit does not guarantee a space to park. On road parking is controlled by the local authority.
  3. The landlord’s adaptations policy says it will offer housing options advice where alternative accommodation represents a practical solution to a resident’s needs.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation for service failures. Awards up to £250 are made to residents who experience distress or inconvenience.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 11 May 2022 that it could not advise its parking enforcement contractor not to issue the resident with parking tickets. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the landlord had no obligation under the tenancy agreement to reimburse the resident for any parking fines she incurred. It said it was happy to support the resident if she wanted to be rehoused to more suitable accommodation and provided details on how to do this. This was consistent with the landlord’s adaptations policy.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 12 May 2022 she was disabled and struggled to walk to the car park at times given her health conditions. She said she should not have been issued with a parking ticket given the landlord had rehoused her into a property which was not close to the car park. She told the landlord on 18 May 2022 that she was being forced into completing a management transfer request.
  7. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at this point. This was a failure and led to the resident making a complaint.
  8. The resident made a complaint on 24 May 2022. She said the landlord failed to take account of the needs of disabled residents by failing to put parking restrictions in place. She said she needed a car parking space so that she could get in and out of her vehicle comfortably. She also noted she had previously asked the landlord to mark up a second disability car parking bay. She said this was needed as other residents parked in the parking bay and she was unable to find parking.
  9. The landlord contacted another landlord who had properties in the area on 31 May 2022 and said it supported her application to use one of its disabled car parking bays. This demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and wanted to put things right for her. The request was refused on 7 June 2022.
  10. The landlord advised the resident on 10 June 2022 in its stage 1 complaint response that she did not have an allocated parking space. This was consistent with the tenancy agreement, provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
  11. The landlord said the car park was designated for residents who lived on the neighbouring road and that whilst it did not want to deny her access to parking, priority would be given to those residents. The landlord said it was happy to review its decision if the resident provided documentation which confirmed she could park her car in the car park. Whilst this was reasonable and demonstrated it was open to changing its position, there is no evidence it checked the resident’s tenancy details at this point. Had it done so, it would have established that the resident paid a service charge for the upkeep of the car park and was eligible to use it. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident inconvenience and led to delays.
  12. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding rehousing given the resident said she would be forced to move if she could not park her car near her home.
  13. The landlord apologised for not returning the resident’s telephone call on 19 May 2022 and offered £25 compensation for the failure. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  14. The resident told the landlord on 10 September 2022 that she was entitled to use the car park and had been doing so for the last 20 years. She said she paid a service charge for the upkeep of the car park and had been issued with free parking permits for both her and her carers. She also noted the landlord would need to offer her alternative accommodation which met her needs if she was no longer entitled to use the car park.
  15. The landlord issued a second stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2022 and said it could find no evidence to confirm the resident was allowed to park in the car park. It is unclear why the landlord stated this given the resident paid a service charge and this information was available to it. This was a failure and caused further delays.
  16.  The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2022. She said she had been paying an annual service charge for 25 years and was issued with free parking permits for herself and her carers. She also noted the landlord had previously overturned parking tickets she had received.
  17. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 December 2022 and confirmed the resident paid a service charge for the car park. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and was waiting for further information regarding her entitlement to park in the car park. The landlord also shared a plan of action which included meeting with the residents on both streets. It said it would share the outcome of its investigations in early February 2023. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  18. In summary, the landlord confirmed the resident was not entitled to a dedicated parking space and liaised with another landlord in support of her application for a parking space. It did not, however, initially give correct advice regarding her right to park in the car park and did not clarify its position until December 2022; some 6 months after she raised a complaint. The landlord also failed to offer the resident rehousing advice.
  19. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on numerous occasions she struggled to walk. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a dedicated parking space, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. Whilst it is noted the resident said she had been subject to disability discrimination, this Service is not able to make a legally binding decision as to whether discrimination has taken place (this would be for the courts to decide on). In this case we have investigated whether the landlord responded fairly and in accordance with its policies and procedures
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. Residents who wish to escalate their complaint must do so within 14 days of receiving a response. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 24 May 2022. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 10 June 2022. This was 13 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord offered the resident £10 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint. This offer was fair in the circumstances.
  5. The resident’s complaint included her belief that the landlord had discriminated against her based on her disability. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports of disability discrimination in its stage 1 complaint response. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which states that landlords must respond to all aspects of a complaint. Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to do this also meant it did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010. This was a failure by the landlord.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 September 2022. The landlord responded on the 12 September 2022 and said it had opened a new stage 1 complaint as it did not receive a request from the resident to escalate her complaint within the deadline date. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 23 September 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its second stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2022.This was 9 working days after the resident made a complaint and was consistent with its complaints policy. Again, the landlord did not address the resident’s reports of disability discrimination. This was a failure.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2022. She said the landlord had failed to answer all of her concerns, including her allegations of discrimination. The resident’s request was not acknowledged by the landlord until 21 November 2022. This was not consistent with its complaints policy. The landlord also failed to advise the resident when she would receive a response to her complaint.
  9.  The landlord issued its final complaint response on 22 December 2022. This was 55 working days after the resident requested her complaint was escalated. This was not appropriate, because it was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. Again, the landlord did not address the resident’s reports of disability discrimination. This was a further failure.
  10. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s reports of disability discrimination. The offer of an additional £100 compensation made on 30 September 2024 cannot be considered reasonable redress given it was not made until after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy.
  11. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst the landlord’s offer of an additional £100 compensation was made after it issued its final complaint response, the offer is considered fair and no further compensation has been awarded.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a dedicated car parking space.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £260 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request for a dedicated car parking space.
    2. £160 previously offered to the resident for its poor complaints handling and failure to return her telephone call, if not already paid.