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

Worthing Homes Limited (202014706)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014706

Worthing Homes Limited

10 February 2022


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. This complaint is about how the landlord handled a dispute regarding parking on the hardstanding in front of the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 14 March 2011. The property is a two bed semi-detached accessible bungalow, with adaptations made to the kitchen and bathroom, located in a cul de sac of similar properties. There is a hardstanding at the front of the bungalow which the resident shares with the adjoining property (Ms A).
  2. On 2 December 2020, the resident was sent a joint letter from the landlord and the police regarding the positioning of his CCTV cameras and GDPR regulations, following a visit to his property on 30 November 2020.

Summary of Events

  1. On 2 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that a neighbour (Ms B) had parked their car on the hardstanding outside Ms A’s property and too close to his boundary, which meant that he was unable to get into his car. The resident’s Neighbourhood Housing Officer (NHO) contacted Ms B and she moved her car the same day.
  2. On 10 December 2020 the resident’s NHO visited his property to discuss the concerns he had about parking, during the visit the NHO agreed to speak to Ms B, which they did on 16 December 2020.The NHO also spoke to Ms A on 17 December 2020 about the dispute about the driveway and her allowing Ms B to park there.
  3. On 17 December 2020, the police emailed the landlord to advise that they had attended the resident’s property again that day and he had still not changed the positioning of his cameras and seemed insistent on keeping his cameras were they were.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 4 January 2021, to report that Ms B had again blocked him in as she was parking too close to the boundary between his and Ms A’s property. The NHO said that they would speak to Ms B that week and would get back to the resident after they had spoken to her.
  5. On 21 January 2021, following the email from the police on 17 December 2020, the NHO wrote to the resident advising him to ensure his cameras focus solely on his own hardstanding and within the boundaries of his property. The NHO advised they would continue to liaise with the police and would seek their advice as to what action the landlord could take if the resident did not adhere to the guidance he had been given.
  6. On 26 January 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident said that he did not feel that his issues were being handled fairly, that he was being victimised. The resident said that Ms B had parked on the hard standing blocking his car in and when challenged she swore at him and left a bag of cat litter on his section of the hardstanding. The resident also complained that the letter he had received from his NHO about his CCTV was ‘threatening and abusive’.
  7. On 2 February 2021, the NHO wrote to the resident to advise that they had spoken to Ms B about his allegations, advised her not to swear at him and that she had said she would park in a considerate manner on the hardstanding, and asked that the resident did the same. The NHO also said that they would be happy to come on site and speak to both parties to see if these issues could be resolved in person. Alternatively, they would be happy to refer both parties to a local Mediation Service.
  8. On 4 February 2021, the landlord called Ms B again to request that she move her car over slightly as the resident had complained that it was over on his side.
  9. On 19 February 2021, the resident called the landlord to report that another neighbour was now parking on Ms A’s hardstanding and that he was unhappy that when he reported this to his NHO no further action was taken. When asked, the resident confirmed that the car was not parked in his bay or over the line but it was very close.
  10. On 24 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord apologised for the NHO not getting back to the resident following their call of 4  January 2021 which they had agreed to do. The landlord went on to:
    1. Explain that Ms A could allow others use her hardstanding if she wished, however all cars must be parked within the allocated spaces and that Ms B had been asked, where possible, to park towards Ms A’s edge of the hardstanding rather than the middle.
    2. Acknowledge that the resident had reported another neighbour parking on the hardstanding but again, whilst that neighbour had also been spoken to it was unable to take any enforcement action to move the car as it was parked correctly, close to but not over the line.
    3. Say that it was satisfied that the NHO had investigated and taken action to try and resolve the issues reported and, as it had received no further reports since, it considered the matters to be closed with no further action needed.
    4. Say that it had reviewed the letters sent by the NHO regarding the resident’s CCTV cameras and did not find any of the language abusive or threatening. The landlord went on to explained that the letter requested the resident’s co-operation in resolving the matter, advised that his NHO would continue to liaise with the Police and confirmed that the resident had not been issued with a warning about the CCTV.
  11. On 3 March 2021, the resident called the landlord to escalate his complaint saying that he was not satisfied that the parking issue had been resolved and that he wanted a fence installed down the middle of the hardstanding. During a call with the landlord on 8 March 2021, the resident also said that he felt unfairly treated because the landlord was taking action following complaints about his CCTV but nothing had been done about the parking complaints he had made.
  12. The landlord issued its final response on 22 March 2021.The landlord said that it was seeking a quote for a central barrier on the hardstanding and that once a proposal and price had been agreed it would advise both the resident and Ms A. It then went on to say that:
    1. It had spoken to the resident’s NHO who did not agree that they had spoken to the resident or acted in an unprofessional manner, and it had not found any cause for concern regarding the NHO’s attitude towards the resident. Nevertheless the landlord recognised that the relationship between the resident and the NHO was strained and that the resident lacked trust in the NHO because of how he believed the NHO had acted towards him.
    2. It suggested that when the resident called its Customer Experience Team, the would deal with his query over the phone and that they would only pass the message to his NHO if a NHO response was needed, and that that response would be by letter not by email as the resident had advised that he did not like using email.
    3. It had considered the resident’s request to change NHO, however, his NHO managed all its properties in that area and it would not be practicable to have an NHO from a different patch managing his property in isolation.
    4. It would be recommending regular customer services training for frontline staff as a reminder of the various means of effective communication that can be used when helping its customers.
  13. On 23 April 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident about the barrier between his and Ms A’s parking spaces. The landlord noted that the resident was happy with the landlord’s proposal.
  14. On 12 May 2021, contractors attended and installed the barriers and on 14 May 2021 the resident called landlord to confirm the works had been completed in the car park and that he was happy with the result.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s Anti-social behaviour guide states that:
    1. With regards to verbal abuse or harassment, if the behaviour is of a criminal nature, the resident should report it to the police immediately and having done so let the landlord know what has happened.
    2. In most cases disagreements between neighbours, such as parking or boundary issues would not be considered anti-social, so would not be investigated.
    3. If a neighbour is parking in a way that obstructs the entrance to the resident’s property or allocated parking space, it suggests that the resident try speaking to them about this as they may not realise it is causing a problem.
    4. If the problem continues, and if it is on its landlord, the landlord will contact the neighbour to resolve the issue.

Assessment

  1. Between 2 December 2020 and 4 February 2021, the resident reported on at least three occasions that Ms B had parked on Ms A’s section of the hardstanding, to the front of their properties, in such a way that it interfered with his access to his car. The resident also reported that Ms B had sworn at him on 2 December 2020 and in his formal complaint alleged that Ms B had left a bag of cat litter on his section of the hardstanding. 
  2. Under the terms of the Anti-social behaviour guide, whilst clearly distressing to the resident, as there was no evidence to suggest that the actions of Ms B were criminal, or had been reported to the police, it was reasonable for the landlord not consider his reports as anti-social behaviour and not to investigate them as such.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, and in order to seek a resolution to those concerns, spoke to both Ms B and another neighbour, who had parked on Ms A’s hardstanding on 19 February 2021. The landlord also spoke to Ms A about how the parking of the neighbours she had allowed to park on her section of the hardstanding was affecting the resident.
  4. The NHO visited the resident on 10 December 2020 to discuss his concerns and offered to do so again in their response of 2 February 2021, at which point the NHO said that they would speak to both parties to see if they could resolve the matter in person and that they would be happy to refer both parties for mediation if that would help resolve their dispute.
  5. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take. As the landlord explained in its stage one response, Ms A was entitled to allow others to use her hardstanding and, whilst the landlord could ask those who parked there to do so with more consideration there was no further action it could take.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord response and on 3 March 2021 requested that a fence be installed down the middle of the hardstanding to prevent any further occurrences. Whilst it was not obliged to, in order to seek a long term resolution and to allay the resident’s concerns about the possibility of these situations reoccurring, the landlord considered the resident’s request and on 12 May 2021, approximately two months later, had installed a barrier between the resident’s and Ms A sections of the hardstanding.
  7. In addition to the parking issue itself, the resident also complained about the conduct of his NHO, that they had victimised him and had not acted fairly, given that they were taking action following complaints about his CCTV but nothing had been done about the parking complaints he had made.
  8. In his formal complaint to the landlord the resident said that the police had told him that the cameras were OK but the NHO had told him to move them. This is not supported by the evidence; the police having contacted the landlord again on 17 December 2020, following their initial visit of 30 November 2020 and letter of 2 December 2020, reporting that the resident had not changed the positioning of his CCTV cameras. As a result of that contact it was reasonable and appropriate for the NHO to write to the resident on 21 January 2021.
  9. At the same time as the resident was reporting his concerns about the parking he was also being contacted by the Police and his NHO regarding his CCTV. There is no evidence to suggest that the NHO actions were inappropriate, or that any of the language used was either abusive or threatening as the resident has suggested.
  10. Nevertheless, the landlord did consider the resident’s request that he have a different NHO recognising that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between them. Having considered the resident’s request, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to why that would not be possible and put forward a number of suggestions to seek to reassure the resident. These included that he contact its customer services team in the first instance, rather than his NHO, to discuss any concerns he may have, that those concerns only be passed to his NHO if absolutely necessary and that it would be recommending training for staff with regards to effective communication.
  11. As the landlord has acknowledged that the NHO did fail to get back to the resident following their conversation on 4 January 2021it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an apology for this shortcoming.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the dispute regarding parking on the hardstanding to the front of the resident’s property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, raised those concerns with the parties alleged to have been parking inconsiderately and took steps to bring the dispute to an end. Ultimately, and not being obliged to do so, it installed a barrier down the dividing line between the resident’s and his neighbour’s sections of the hardstanding.
  2. Whilst the resident was clearly upset by his interactions with his NHO there is no evidence to substantiate the resident’s claim that he was unfairly treated nor that the NHO had acted in an inappropriate or unprofessional manner. Nevertheless, the landlord recognised that there had been a breakdown in trust between the resident and his NHO, considered the resident’s request that his NHO be changed and when it became clear that that was not possible suggested a process by which the resident’s contact with his NHO could be minimised.