First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202210078)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210078

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

30 May 2023

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 concerns the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a parking space.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The landlord has stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household, but that it was aware that the resident had mobility issues.
3. The resident has had an ongoing dispute with the landlord regarding the availability of parking in the area. On 30 July 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint, which included the following:
   1. There had been ongoing issues with parking in the area since she moved into the property in 2016. This had become progressively worse as residents purchased their homes and received permission to install driveways and drop the pavement curbing, which had reduced the amount of on-street parking.
   2. The issue has had a particular effect on the residents of the bungalows, who are disabled or elderly. The resident and the other residents of the bungalows had experienced difficulty finding parking spots and walking to and from their bungalows to their cars.
   3. The grass verge in front of the bungalows (which is owned by the landlord) had enough room to install four parking bays for the sole use of the bungalows, which would resolve all of the parking problems the resident and the other residents of the bungalows had experienced.
4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 9 August 2022, and a stage two complaint response on 1 September 2022. The landlord also visited the resident at her property on 26 August 2022, to discuss the complaint and the issues of parking in the area. Its response included the following:
   1. It agreed with the resident that the on-street parking in the area around her property was very limited.
   2. It noted that during its visit on 26 August 2022, it had inspected the grass verge outside the bungalow and talked with the resident about the issues she had experienced with parking, her health issues, and the inconsiderate parking from other residents in the street, which had resulted in the resident having to park some distance from her home.
   3. It had sent a letter to all its residents to ask them to be respectful of other vehicles, but noted that as long as a vehicle is taxed and insured, it could be parked wherever it was safe to do so.
   4. The homeowners of the houses on the other side of the street who had installed driveways had received the appropriate permissions from the local authority and the Highways Agency.
   5. It had looked into two potential options for providing a parking space on the verge but determined that this was not feasible due to the verge’s incline, the water main beneath the verge, and the trees that were planted on the verge. It also stated that it had spoken to the local authority about the trees, and it was likely that it would not be given permission to remove any of the trees to make a parking bay.
5. On 7 September 2022, the local authority wrote to the resident about the landlord’s proposals to place a parking space on the grass verge. It confirmed that it would not give permission for the removal of a mature tree to undertake the work and also noted that the work would likely also cause damage or disturbance to the rooting environment of the other trees on the verge.
6. In referring the case to this service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as being that the landlord was not making reasonable adjustments for her health issues and had passed on the responsibility for the parking space to the local authority.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement signed by the resident on 8 August 2016. This does not provide any provision for a parking space as part of the property the resident pays rent for. Moreover, the tenancy agreement does not describe the property as an ‘accessible property’. An accessible property is a property that has been adapted prior to being let to allow a disabled person to live there without barriers to their independence. This may include the installation of ramps, lowered work surfaces, wider doorways, and off-road parking.

Scope of investigation

8. In her telephone call with this service on 18 October 2022, where she set out the outstanding issues of the complaint, the resident stated that the landlord had refused to provide her with a safe pathway with a handrail from her property to the road and wanted this element to be considered as part of the case. While this issue was discussed by the resident and landlord in October 2022, it was not raised by the resident in her formal complaint made on 30 July 2022, and it was not referred to by the landlord in its formal complaint responses.
9. Before a matter can be considered by this service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding this matter. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
10. Throughout her correspondence with the landlord and with this service, the resident has described the effect on her existing health conditions caused by not having a parking space close to her property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. While this service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
11. The resident has also expressed her dissatisfaction with the responses she received from the local authority regarding its decision to decline permission to remove a tree from the grass verge. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.”
12. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints made against a local authority when it is acting as a social landlord and the complainant is its tenant. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this element of the complaint. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue further, it is advised that she contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) who can provide help and information on how to progress a complaint against a local authority.

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a parking space

13. The Ombudsman notes that there is a difference between a repair obligation and an improvement. While a landlord does not have an obligation to make improvements to a property, it is nevertheless best practise to investigate a resident’s concerns when a request for an improvement is made.
14. In this case, while the landlord had no obligation to agree to provide a parking space, as no provision for parking is given in the tenancy agreement, it was appropriate for it to respond to the resident’s reports of the difficulty she was experiencing in parking close to her properly and the inconvenience this caused in light of her mobility issues.
15. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint. Its internal correspondence showed that on receipt of the resident’s complaint, it looked at the site plan of the area and photographs of the streets to determine what parking options were available and whether it would be possible to repurpose the grass verge to use for parking. It undertook an inspection of the area and discussed whether it would be possible to create a parking bay for the resident on the verge, taking into account the verge’s incline and the water main beneath it.
16. In its complaint responses and when visiting the resident to discuss the matter, the landlord explained that it had decided against making a parking bay on the verge as, in order to do so, it would likely have to reposition the water main and at least one tree would need to be removed, both of which were not feasible. In an email to the resident sent on 7 September 2022, and in a further email sent on 14 September 2022, from its legal team, the local authority confirmed that it would not give permission to the landlord to remove any of the trees on the verge.
17. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. Although it had no obligation to do so, the landlord acted appropriately by examining the options that were available to provide a parking bay for the resident, and when it determined that this was not possible, it explained to the resident in detail what steps it had taken to investigate the matter and why it was not possible for it to fit a parking bay onto the grass verge.
18. The resident has stated that the landlord should make reasonable adjustments due to her health and provide a parking space. The resident has the option of applying for a disabled parking badge (a blue badge), which would grant the resident the ability to park in disabled parking spaces. Once a blue badge is granted, the resident then has the option of making an application to the local authority to be allocated a disabled parking space. For a disabled bay to be granted, a legal order has to be completed and is subject to a public advertisement period where objections can be submitted. If this is approved, the local authority would then mark out a disabled parking bay for the sole use of the resident on the roadway. The resident is advised to contact the local authority if she wishes to pursue this option.
19. When sending evidence for this case, the landlord informed this service that it did not have a parking policy. It is recommended that the landlord review this position. A policy document or information leaflet that was available to its residents to inform them of the differences between properties that have allocated parking and those that do not, the landlord’s responsibilities relating to parking, the restrictions placed on it by other agencies such as local authorities or the Highways Agency, and what other parking options are available to a resident (such as the blue scheme described above) would have answered several of the queries that were raised by the resident during her complaint, particularly in reference to the resident’s request to have a parking bay allocated to her as a reasonable adjustment. This may also have shortened the complaints process time and caused less inconvenience to the resident when progressing the matter both with the landlord and with this service. A parking policy or information leaflet could have managed the resident’s expectations as to what the landlord was and was not able to do in respect of parking prior to the complaint being raised.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s request for a parking space.

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord review the information it gives to residents relating to parking and whether it would be beneficial to have a dedicated parking policy or an information leaflet available to residents.