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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202201501)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201501

Notting Hill Genesis

22 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. This complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. reports of others parking in the resident’s designated disabled parking bay, and;
    2. the related complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a two-bedroom 2nd floor wheelchair adapted flat.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms this tenancy provides the resident with a designated parking space; parking space 5. This is located underneath the building. The management of the parking is performed by a managing agent employed by the freeholder.
  3. On 16 March 2022 the resident was unable to park in his reserved disability car bay due to someone blocking it. The resident e-mailed the managing agent to inform them of this but did not receive a response.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about this on 19 April 2022. He was unhappy people continually parked inside his reserved parking space, that the managing agent was not responding to his e-mails, and that the CCTV surveillance was not properly being used by the concierge of the building. The resident sent two further e-mails requesting confirmation his complaint had been logged on 21 April 2022 and 29 April 2022.
  5. The landlord confirmed the complaint had been logged on 29 April 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 5 May 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in logging the complaint but felt that its response was still within the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy. The landlord also advised that it had forwarded on the concerns to the managing agents and set up a meeting with them to find out more about parking controls. It also requested more information about the CCTV being misused.
  6. The resident rejected the stage 1 response on 8 May 2022. He felt the landlord had failed to properly answer his complaint or address concerns about his parking bay. He also sent pictures of a cone he felt the managing agent had purposely placed within his bay to inconvenience him. He was unhappy with the cost of the managing agent given the service he received. The landlord confirmed escalation to stage 2 on 10 May 2022, informing the resident he could expect a response within 20 working days. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 May 2022 to inform it his car had once again been blocked in. The landlord responded the following day asking further questions about this incident.
  7. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2022. The landlord provided the resident with £10 compensation for its delay at stage 1, £10 for failing to answer the resident’s concerns about the managing agent at stage 1, and £20 for the delay at stage 2. It informed the resident that as the managing agent is responsible for the parking bays any future problems need to be referred to them. It also found no evidence of the CCTV being misused by the managing agent. 
  8. The resident rejected the landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 July 2022. He informed this Service he still felt the landlord had ignored his concerns about parking in his bay. He felt the managing agent was not doing enough except from when it was his, or his visitors parking. He was also unhappy that the landlord asked him for information on the cars that blocked him in as it had access to the CCTV. He informed this Service he wished for CCTV to be installed in his property so he could monitor this himself. The resident told this Service in a call on 3 August 2022 that he remained unhappy with the parking bay aspect of his complaint, and to resolve his complaint he wished to be able to access the CCTV footage in his own property. He said all other matters in the complaint response had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of others parking in the resident’s designated disabled parking bay

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement has car parking space 5 listed within the description of premises. This makes this part of the property, and something the landlord should be ensuring the resident can access and use. As this was a disabled parking bay the landlord should be making reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 to enable fair usage of this facility.
  2. The headlease for the property states the landlord “shall comply with the reasonable directions of the Management Company (or its contractors) in relation to the use of the Car Park”. This means the management of the car park is performed by the managing agent appointed by the freeholder. The managing agent currently employs a concierge to manage both the building and car park.
  3. When the resident raised concerns about vehicles blocking his parking space the landlord asked him to provide information such as timings when offending vehicles were present. The managing agent also requested this from the landlord so it could check CCTV footage. The resident was unhappy about being asked for this information and failed to provide this. Given this information was not provided, the landlord could not be expected to do anything further with its investigation since it could not provide the managing agent with more information into the specific incidents.
  4. Although the landlord may not be responsible for the management of the parking garage, it should be working with the managing agent to prevent future instances of the resident being unable to use his parking space. The landlord provides this space as part of the tenancy agreement, and it is therefore the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it is doing as much as it can to ensure access. The resident had this issue twice throughout the complaint, but still feels this is an ongoing issue.
  5. In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord appears to have taken no action to assess the parking space or consider what more it could be doing to stop unauthorised blockage of the resident’s space. The landlord has not therefore done enough to address these concerns or treated the resident fairly when handling the issue. Although it cannot control the actions of people parking, it should have considered what more could be done to address these concerns moving forwards. This is especially the case due to this space being a disabled parking space. The landlord may need to consider making reasonable adjustments to the parking arrangement as per the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s actions in simply directing the resident to the managing agent were not sufficient. 
  6. The landlord should consider what steps it can take to ensure the resident is able to access the space it provides as part of the tenancy agreement. The landlord should be working alongside the managing agent to ensure the resident is able to freely access the space as much as possible. The landlord has met with the managing agent to discuss the parking arrangements, however no update or amendments to the parking arrangements were provided to the resident as a result.
  7. To resolve his complaint the resident has stated he would like CCTV viewing equipment to be installed in his property. As this CCTV is used for the management of the building, the landlord does not need to provide this equipment or facility to the resident.
  8. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for its failure to treat him fairly when responding to his concerns. This is in line with its discretionary compensation policy. The landlord should also write to the resident to set out clearly what the process is for the resident to report parking breaches and to outline how the resident will know these reports have been acknowledged.
  9. The landlord should also consider arranging a meeting between itself, the managing agent, and the landlord to see what steps can be taken to prevent future disruption.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that at stage 1 it will contact the resident within two working days to discuss the outcome the resident is seeking. It then aims to provide a written response within ten working days.  At stage 2 the landlord states it will attempt to provide a formal written response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first raised his complaint with the landlord on 19 April 2022. This means the resident should have received an acknowledgment on 21 April 2022 and the stage 1 response by 3 May 2022. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged on 29 April 2022 and the first response sent on 4 May 2022. As these were outside the policy guidelines, the landlord provided the resident with £10 for the one-day delay. Given the level of delay, this was reasonable redress for the landlord’s failing in line with its compensation policy.
  3. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint on 8 May 2022, and the landlord confirmed this on 10 May 2022. When acknowledging the resident’s complaint, the landlord advised it would be providing a response within 20 working days. The landlord has told the resident it e-mailed him on 20 May 2022 informing him it would require an additional 10 days to provide its stage 2 response. This e-mail has not been provided to this Service. The stage 2 response was provided on 21 June 2022, 30 working days after the resident had requested an escalation of the complaint and 27 working days after this acknowledgement. The landlord offered £20 redress for its delays. Given the length of the delay and the amount of inconvenience to the resident this is also a reasonable offer of redress.
  4. The landlord also provided £10 to the resident for failure to answer an element of his complaint at stage 1. This was in relation to the managing agent and its behaviour. The landlord’s offer of £10 for this failing is reasonable redress.
  5. The tone of the landlord’s responses was fair and reasonable.
  6. It is recommended that the landlord should reoffer the £40 offered in its complaint response for its failings in handling the resident’s complaint if this has not already been paid.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of others parking in the resident’s designated disabled parking bay.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for their handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within four weeks of this letter the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to treat him fairly when handling his reports of others parking in his designated disabled parking bay.
    2. The Landlord should also write to the resident to set out clearly what the process is for the resident to report parking breaches and to outline how the resident will know these reports have been acknowledged.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already paid this to the resident, the landlord should reoffer the resident the £40 offered for its complaint handling failures in its complaint response of 21 June 2022.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord arrange a meeting between the resident, the managing agent, and itself to discuss what can be done to prevent future instances of the resident not being able to use his parking space.