Clarion Housing Association Limited (202122801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122801

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 May 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. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to provide the resident with a designated parking space, following its error in advising that the property came with designated parking.
   2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the property. The tenancy agreement for the property commenced in June 2021. The property does not come with allocated parking. The resident is elderly and has a mobility disability.  His wife is his carer and the property was adapted for his needs based on Occupational Health (OH) recommendations.  At the property viewing, the resident had enquired about parking and was erroneously advised that property came with allocated parking.
3. During the subsequent tenancy sign-up process, the resident contacted the landlord to ask about the parking and was advised at this point that there was no parking. The tenancy agreement commended and contact between the resident and landlord about the issue ensued, notably throughout September and October 2021, with the resident explaining that he had a mobility disability and would not have taken the property had he been advised it did not come with allocated parking. The resident asked the landlord if it could allocate him parking and with no spaces available nearby it suggested two spaces further away, which the landlord declined.
4. The resident suggested the landlord covert a visitor parking bay close to the property, into allocated parking for him or that it remove some yellow lines and create an allocated parking space for him there. The landlord declined to carry out both suggestions and suggested the resident use the visitor parking bays, although the resident has said that these are not always available.
5. Following submission of a formal complaint, which concluded the landlord’s complaint procedure on 17 December 2021, the landlord upheld the complaint, offering a total of £200 compensation; £150 for erroneously advising him that the property came with allocated parking and a total of £50 for a delayed response to the complaint at both stages one and two of its complaints procedure. The landlord also advised that it has provided staff training in light of the mistake it made.

Assessment and findings

Parking

6. The landlord made an error during the resident’s viewing at the property, in advising him that the property came with allocated parking when this was not the case.  Instead, the landlord has stated that tenants are able to apply for a parking space and wait for a space to become available, although this is for an indeterminate length of time.
7. The error the landlord made caused more than a problem of inconvenience for the resident.  The resident is elderly and has a mobility disability and states that he would not have accepted the property had he been correctly informed that it did not come with allocated parking because of this. The condition of the resident’s health is supported by evidence from an Occupational Therapist (OT) which has been provided to the landlord. The resident maintains a degree of freedom in being able to drive but getting to and from his vehicle causes difficultly if it is not parked close by.
8. There was acknowledgement by the landlord of the mistake made, with it appropriately apologising, advising that it had trained staff so as to prevent a recurrence and offering £150 compensation in recognition of this and the associated inconvenience.  Whilst an appropriate response to a deeply unfortunate mistake, this does not rectify the problem, however, there were no parking spaces available for it to allocate at that time.  The alternative options suggested by the resident – namely, converting the visitor parking space outside of the property to a dedicated parking space for him or the landlord removing some yellow lines and creating a parking space for him there – were declined by the landlord, citing that doing this would impact other residents.
9. The landlord’s offer instead, of two dedicated parking spaces further away was objectively reasonable, however, did not take into account the resident’s health and mobility issues, which was the fundamental reason for him wanting a dedicated parking space close by.  The issue was not so much about not having a space, as to the not having a space close to the property itself, which he had been incorrectly advised at viewing, would be the case. 
10. Similarly, the landlord’s suggestion of using visitor parking bays did not provide certainty, with there being no guarantee that they would be empty at the time the resident wanted to park in them
11. It is important to note that evidence has been provided to this investigation of the resident calling the landlord at some point during the sign-up stage to enquire about the parking.  During this call it is documented in the landlord’s notes that the resident was made aware at this time or prior, that the property did not come with allocated parking and to apply for parking as soon as possible because of this.  The records state that the resident’s wife advised that “they will be going ahead anyway as they have waited for 5 years to get a suitable offer”. 
12. The landlord has not referred to this in its complaints responses, simply recognising that it made the initial mistake.  Whilst this does not detract from the mistake the landlord made or its consequences, it does suggest that the mistake was recognised early and that the landlord gave advice as to how the resident might secure a parking space at this time. It is important to note, because the resident decided to accept the property at this stage, in the knowledge that it did not come with a dedicated parking space, although this was after the initial viewing and acceptance of the property.
13. The landlord’s ‘Garages, Parking Spaces and Sheds Policy’ contradicts the landlord’s assertion that the resident is able to apply for parking and wait for a space to become available, giving rise to a lack of clarity as to the process of obtaining allocated parking.  It states at paragraph 2.4 that “Garages, parking spaces and sheds will be let on a first come first served basis following advertisement of a vacancy. [The landlord] does not maintain a waiting list”.  If this is the case, this means that the resident is unable to apply for a parking space and wait for one to become available as advised, but instead must be vigilant to advertisements, ensuring he immediately applies at the time and hopes that he is first to do so. 
14. Notwithstanding the lack of clarity as described, the landlord is not obliged to operate outside the scope of its policy, but is able to exercise discretion and do so.  Exercising discretion would be reasonable in circumstances such as this, where there has been a fundamental mistake on the part of the landlord, which impacts the quality of life of an elderly disabled resident.
15. The Ombudsman recognises that removing yellow lines and creating a dedicated parking space for the resident or changing one of the three visitor spaces in the vicinity to become a dedicated parking space for him may not be pragmatic or practical and cause wider implications.  However, there are other options the landlord missed the opportunity to consider, including prioritisation of the resident for parking, should a space become available.  The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers this and any other ways to accelerate the resident having a dedicated parking space close by, or alternative housing options with a dedicated parking space close by, should the resident wish to pursue this.
16. It is unfortunate that beyond this, the landlord is unable create a parking space that does not exist and the Ombudsman is unable to order that it creates a new one – this is a decision it is entitled to make itself.  There was a service failure by the landlord, however, it acted appropriately in recognising the error, apologising for this, retraining staff and offering compensation. The level of compensation offered fell short of the service failure, however.  The landlord’s compensation policy states that where there has been misdirection or where a complainant has had to repeatedly chase the landlord, compensation offered should be in the region of £250-£700 and the landlord offered a total of £200, which is below this.

Complaint handling

17. The landlord responded to the complaint outside of its articulated target timeframes at both stages one and two of the complaints policy, which states that the landlord aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. The landlord appropriately recognised and apologised for its delay on both occasions, although it was inappropriate that it did not provide an explanation for delay, nor keep the resident updated as to the progress of his complaint which led to chasing on the part of the resident.
18. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the error made, make the suggestions as to a way forward and explain that staff had been trained to prevent a recurrence and make an offer of compensation, it did not explain what training had been carried out specifically or make an offer of compensation that was in accordance with its policy.
19. Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to put things right and the Ombudsman expects a landlord to be specific about how it has done so, which includes being specific about what went wrong and why and any training or other steps undertaken to prevent such a mistake from happening again and the landlord did not go far enough in this respect.
20. In terms of the compensation offered, while it was appropriate for the landlord to do this, it was not within the region set out in its complaints policy, which is between £250-£700 for misdirection on the landlord’s part and/or where a complainant has had to chase matters and between £50-£250 for failures in service standards. The landlord specifically used the term ‘misdirection’ in its complaints response yet did not offer the level of compensation to reflect this and offered only £25 compensation for each service failure in respect of its complaints handling delays, rather than £50.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its mistake in advising the resident that the property came with allocated parking.
22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Order

23. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £350, comprised of:
       1. £250 in recognition of the misdirection.
       2. £100 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.
       3. The £350 compensation is a total amount, to encompass any compensation already paid.
24. The landlord to evidence compliance to this Service with the above order by the same date.

Recommendations

25. If the landlord holds a waiting list for parking, then for it to assist the resident with applying for a parking space close to the property, if the resident has not already done so. 
26. The landlord to consider other options, including prioritising the resident’s application for parking or alternative housing options, where a property comes with dedicated parking close by, should the resident be interested in this.